Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE LIGHTHOUSES ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Clyde Lighthouses, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

H.M. Dockyards

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes have been made in the last five years in the arrangements for personnel management and labour relations in Her Majesty's dockyards.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No changes have been made in the arrangements for personnel management at the dockyards. At headquarters a civilian officer with wide experience of labour relations was appointed in 1954 as personnel officer. His duties have recently been widened and he now acts as Assistant Director of Dockyards (Personnel).

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes have been made in the last five years in the management structure in Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: An experimental appointment of a senior civilian officer as Deputy Superintendent (Industrial) was made at Chatham in 1953. An additional deputy manager has been appointed in each of the constructive,

engineering and electrical departments at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham yards. Planning groups are now being introduced at the main home yards and method study officers appointed. A team of senior officers is examining the scope for work measurement in the dockyards.
Management structure of the dockyards is one of the matters on which Sir Barclay Nihill's Committee has recently reported. Its recommendations are now being considered.

Mr. Albu: I welcome the steps which the Admiralty has taken towards putting into operation some of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Estimates five or six years ago, but can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the Nihill Committee has taken those recommendations further into account?

Mr. Galbraith: All the subjects which the Estimates Committee went into the Nihill Committee also has looked at, and a much wider field as well. As I said in the Answer I have just given, the Report has only just been received in the Admiralty and it is at this moment being studied.

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements are at present made for the training in management methods of senior and junior supervisory staff in Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: At headquarters, an Assistant Director, Management Techniques, was appointed in 1954. Management training centres are in operation at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham. They provide two-week courses for chargemen and job-relations training for all managing and supervising officers. The Portsmouth centre also provides four-week courses for inspectors from all yards.
A variety of residential conferences of up to three weeks' duration is organised for grades from senior inspector to manager. Selected officers are sent to external management training courses. It is planned shortly to set up a centre to give training in the techniques of methods study and planning.

Mr. Albu: When the Nihill Committee has reported, will some information be given to the House as to the changes which are to be made, so that the


Admiralty does not hide its light under a bushel as it has seemed to have been doing during the past few years?

Mr. Galbraith: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it is the intention to make a statement to the House.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will place all new construction and repair work for the Royal Navy with Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It has been, and remains, the policy of the Admiralty to place in the Royal dockyards all the warship repair work which can conveniently be allocated to them. As a result of this policy very little of this work is now being put out to contract. Because the repair and maintenance of the Fleet is the primary function of the Royal dockyards, their facilities for new construction are limited. Nevertheless, the volume of new construction allocated to them is rising.

Brigadier Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I assure him that Portsmouth and other dockyards will be very pleased to hear it?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Civil Lord be kind enough to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) upon his conversion to State Socialism?

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what effects the Defence White Paper will have on the future of Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The future of the dockyards is being considered as part of the current re-organisation of naval forces and their shore support, to which I referred in my recent statement on Hong Kong Dockyard. I regret that I cannot say more until further progress has been made in this review.

Brigadier Clarke: I am sure the home dockyards will be very pleased to hear the statement the Minister made in reply to Question 4. May I express the hope to my hon. Friend, with reference to my Question No. 5, that he will do equally well in the future?

Mr. Steele: Could the Civil Lord say whether this very important Committee

which is now considering the question of all the dockyards will report on the possible use of the dockyards for extra civil work in both shipbuilding and ship repairs?

Mr. Galbraith: No. The Committee is dealing only with the organisation of the dockyards, not with their scope or with any other uses to which they might be put.

Mr. Burden: When considering the future of the Royal Naval dockyards, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the possibility of still further extending the new construction of vessels in those yards, particularly in view of the greater measure of security that can be undertaken there?

Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid that the physical capacity of the dockyards, quite apart from any other considerations, makes this impracticable.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman state in a White Paper the number of slipways that are empty, and the period for which they have been empty, in Her Majesty's dockyards?

Mr. Galbraith: I will consider that point.

Berthing Facilities, Devonport (Italian Steamer)

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will grant permission for the use of a quayside berth at Devonport Dockyard for the Italian steamer "Irpinia", 12,299 tons gross register, for the winter months of 1958–59; and whether he will allow any necessary repairs to be carried out in the dockyard.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The alongside berths at Devonport are generally in use for H.M. ships refitting, and no guarantee can be given that a suitable berth would be available at the times required. I urn afraid, therefore, that permission cannot be granted.

Miss Vickers: In view of this refusal and the fact that permission has been granted previously to a Dutch ship, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that during the coming year there will be full work for the 20,000 employees now employed there and that this refusal will not render any of them redundant?

Mr. Galbraith: Devonport Dockyard has a full programme of naval work for the ensuing year.

Mr. Bottomley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the yards full of repair work and the urge that private work should also be carried out, there is no need to worry about the future of the dockyards?

Royal Marines (Recruiting)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why his Department intervened on the evening of Monday, 18th November, to cancel a British Broadcasting Corporation's television programme designed by the Royal Marines to encourage recruiting by giving publicity to a scheme whereby any serving Royal Marine officer or other rank who introduced a new recruit to the Service could qualify for an extra week's leave; whether recruiting for the Royal Marines is achieving the numbers required by the Admiralty; why the Admiralty decided to overrule Royal Marines' initiative in recruiting matters; whether he is aware that his action is calculated to discourage Royal Marines' recruiting; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): As regards the current state of recruiting for the Royal Marines, and the extra leave scheme, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave last Wednesday to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). We are studying ways and means of increasing the rate of recruiting and the grant of extra leave to serving men who bring in recruits is one of these.
As this particular idea was under examination at the time, the Admiralty took the view that it would not be right to authorise a serving officer to discuss it on television, and I would add that it was the B.B.C. who approached the Royal Marines and not vice versa, as implied by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nabarro: While that is a very reasonable explanation, may I ask my hon. Friend if he can give an assurance that it will not become a habit or a practice on the part of Her Majesty's

Ministers to tamper in any way with B.B.C. or I.T.A. television programmes, or with sound broadcasting?

Mr. Soames: Where the Admiralty is concerned, we have a responsibility to see that serving officers get the authority of the Admiralty before appearing on the B.B.C., and I believe the House would like to think that this was so. What happened in this instance was that the B.B.C. asked whether an officer could appear on a programme to talk about this set of circumstances, and, as time was short, he went to Bristol while the Admiralty was being asked. As the matter was under consideration, it was considered inappropriate to allow him to go on the air.

Mr. Nabarro: I accept that.

N.A.T.O. Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic (Statement)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet that the naval forces at the disposal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are insufficient to carry out the duties which would fall to them in the event of war was made with his approval.

Mr. Soames: This officer was speaking in his capacity as the N.A.T.O. Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic. In this capacity he did not require to obtain my noble Friend's approval before making the statement. Similar views to those of the Commander-in-Chief were expressed by the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those views are the same as the views held by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty? If he does hold those views, is it not time that he resigned his position as First Lord of the Admiralty, if he considers that the Government have imposed tasks upon him which he is unable to perform with the forces given to him by that Government?

Mr. Soames: The officer concerned was not referring to the forces of any one particular country. He was referring to N.A.T.O. forces in the Atlantic, which are


provided by a number of countries, and he took great care not to pick out any particular Navy for comment.

Chatham Dockyard

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Dockyard, Chatham.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: No, Sir. I cannot do so until further progress has been made in the review of dockyard requirements in the light of the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an Admiralty statement has been put out which seeks to imply that there is work for a long time to come in Chatham Dockyard? Can the Minister say anything about the work that is going on in the yard at the moment?

Mr. Galbraith: A new submarine has been laid down in Chatham Dockyard, and in general a full load of work is planned for the dockyard in the immediate future.

Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, in all the deliberations concerning Chatham Dockyard, its particular suitability for the construction and maintenance of submarines?

Mr. Galbraith: That point is kept in mind.

Nuclear Submarine "Dreadnought"

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he will make a statement on the future of Great Britain's atom-powered submarine.

Major Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he expects H.M.S. "Dreadnought" to be launched.

Mr. Soames: The building of the nuclear submarine "Dreadnought" is proceeding as planned. It is too early yet to announce a launching date.

Mr. Williams: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks certainly of hon. Members on this side of the House who are interested in the naval and civil development of new methods of propulsion at sea, and will he remember the lesson in

the aircraft sphere of the Vickers 1000 and bear in mind the importance of pressing ahead with this project as fast and as far as possible?

Major Wall: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no measures of economy will affect the launching of this warship, because it is vital for the future of this country as a maritime Power to develop nuclear propulsion for ships before the many other countries which are now engaged in the same task?

Mr. Soames: I can only say that the programme is going ahead as it was planned, and I have no reason to believe that that will be changed.

Mr. Steele: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what assistance he is getting from the United States in this matter? Is there close co-operation?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. Within the broad framework of what was arranged and agreed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States when the Prime Minister visited Washington recently, nuclear propulsion, especially for military purposes, is obviously a feature which is going to be studied very deeply with a view to a greater degree of co-operation being brought about between the two countries; but it is too early yet to say what effect that will have upon any particular project.

Merchant Ships (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the research and development work which is proceeding on the possibility of building an atom-powered merchant ship.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Research is going forward on the problem which is to develop a system able to hold its own with conventionally powered ships. There are a number of basically different reactors which might prove suitable. One of the most promising of these possibilities is to develop an advanced form of the existing Calder Hall type of reactor.
A considerable programme of work will be necessary before the stage is reached at which the building of a ship would be practicable. This work is proceeding with all speed.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who wish to maintain this nation as the premier maritime Power of the world are extremely interested in the commercial application of this new method of propulsion? Will he give the House an assurance that this nation will not become too interdependent with its allies, but that we shall be able to develop our own methods of propulsion for our ships?

Mr. Galbraith: We are examining a type of reactor which is different from that of the Americans.

Butlin's Holiday Camp, Skegness

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements he has made to take over Butlin's camp at Skegness in the event of war; and what plans he has for its use.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It would not be in the public interest for me to discuss the nature of any plans to take over property in the event of war.

Commander Maitland: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is very much in the public interest that the public should know where they can go to find a reception area in the event of atomic bombing? How can they possibly know if certain areas are reserved? Should there not be an overriding priority to use these areas for the reception of refugees due to atomic bombing if that were to occur?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that is rather a wider matter than purely an Admiralty problem, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend who is responsible for coordinating the various Departmental requirements of this sort will be most interested in my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I can tell his hon. and gallant Friend where the people will go when war comes and that the hon. Gentleman would be far better occupied, and so would the other occupants of the Treasury Bench, in trying to avoid a war and leave Mr. Butlin to his business.

Devonport Dockyard

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the plans for the extension of Devonport

Dockyard are now complete; and what plans he has for handing back to, the city of Plymouth additional land or buildings.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Yes. Following the Admiralty decision of July last not to acquire some nine acres previously included in the scheme for the dockyard extension, I recently received a further deputation from the Plymouth Council. Discussion between us is still going on. In the meantime, the transfer to the council of a number of properties not now required has been brought under negotiation.

Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for seeing this deputation. In recent years the Government have handed back more than 27½ acres. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he realises that the derequisitioning of this land in the city by the Government is completely wrecking the economy of Devonport, and that there are now more vacant spaces than after the bombing and that it is a dreary and desolate place? Has he considered the petition from traders and householders for compensation? Will he consider also building Admiralty dwellings on this land instead of at St. Budeaux?

Mr. Galbraith: I could not for one moment accept the suggestion that the whole economy of Devonport has been ruined, but, as I told the deputation when they came to see me, we have very great sympathy with the citizens of Devonport who have suffered from this uncertainty. It was to try to ease the difficulties which the council foresaw that the deputation came to see me.

Miss Vickers: How does my hon. Friend think that sympathy helps? What we want is some practical help and compensation.

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how the programme for the building of new workshops and the reconstruction of old workshops in Devonport Dockyard is progressing; and how many feet of the dockyard wall remain to be built.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The programme for new building and reconstruction of workshops in Devonport Dockyard is being progressed as rapidly as financial


limitations permit. Some 7,000 feet of the wall required by the extension scheme remain to be built.

Miss Vickers: In view of the fact that we are told that this very expensive wall, which costs £12 an inch to build, is really necessary, and as we have 3 per cent. unemployment in Devonport over and above the national average of 1·5 per cent., and as most of the unemployed are building operatives, can my hon. Friend undertake forthwith to employ some of those men on this necessary wall?

Mr. Galbraith: I could not undertake to build the whole wall in one year.

Anti-Submarine Weapons

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent atomic anti-submarine weapons have been developed in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Soames: Research into new antisubmarine weapons covers a broad field, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose details.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he or his colleagues have any answer, in their opinion, to the possible menace of the immense Soviet submarine fleet?

Mr. Soames: That is a very broad question to answer by way of Question and Answer, but I should say that probably one of the most potent weapons to use against a submarine is another submarine, particularly a nuclear submarine.

Vote A Strength and Civilian Employees

Major Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the reduction during the past twelve months in the numbers of the uniformed branches of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, compared with the civilian and non-uniformed branches; and what percentage of the total this reduction forms in each case.

Mr. Soames: The Vote A strength fell by 7,000 or 5¾ per cent. between 1st October, 1956, and 1st October, 1957. In the same period the numbers of Admiralty civilian employees fell by about 10,000 or about 5½ per cent.

Major Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable anxiety at the apparent trend, not borne out by his Answer to this Question, that the uniformed branches are falling more rapidly than the non-uniformed branches in the Navy? Will he make certain that the non-uniformed branches of the Navy, the civil servants, are cut to the same or to an even greater degree than the uniformed branches?

Mr. Soames: I hope, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, that this Answer will serve to right this erroneous impression.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Married Quarters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters have been built at Aldershot since 1st January, 1950; and what are the plans for the future in this respect.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): 188 married quarters have been built in this period and 250 more converted or modernised. Further work is in progress, but I am not yet in a position to say what the final numbers will be.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate how disappointing this figure is after seven years? Is it to be wondered at that there is difficulty in getting Regulars for thy Army? Is not this one of the reasons why the decision to abandon National Service is in great danger?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member can be assured that we fully appreciate the importance of building the maximum number of married quarters as soon as we can. He will also appreciate that the average in this locality he mentions has not been below the general average for the country.

Mr. Dodds: It is bad everywhere.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War how many new homesteads have been provided for married soldiers and their families during the past five years; what is the total amount of domestic accommodation now available for this purpose in this country; and to what


extent proposals to provide modern accommodation have now been implemented.

Mr. J. Amery: I have taken the whole of the hon. Member's Question to refer to the United Kingdom. A total of 4,896 married quarters for officers and other ranks have been built in the last five years; and the total number now available is 27,942. We have completed more than three-quarters of the programme of new building which was launched in 1949 and we have, in addition, modernised or converted more than 2,000 old married quarters.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that accommodation will now be available for all married soldiers who need it?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I think it would be over-ambitious to say that all needs are catered for, but we are pressing on to meet the full requirements of the Army as soon as possible.

G.O.C.-in-C., Western Command (Speech)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the announcement by Lieutenant-General Sir E. Otway Herbert, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, which was delivered to the Institution of Electrical Engineers at Chester on 11th November, to the effect that Russian scientific claims were not to be believed, was made with his authority; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the speech by Lieutenant-General Sir E. Otway Herbert. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, at Chester on 11th November, declaring that the Soviet authorities must never be believed about anything they tell us, was made with the authority of his Department.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): No authority was necessary. I understand that General Herbert's remark was that we should not believe everything the Russians tell us.

Mr. Thomas: Whether or not the Secretary of State has done me the favour of reading this speech, is he aware that this officer did not believe there was a Sputnik and did not believe there was a dog in the Sputnik?

Mr. Nabarro: Was there a dog in the Sputnik?

Mr. Thomas: If that officer holds those strange views of the Russian experiments, what view would he take of the American experiments?

Mr. Hare: The latter part of the supplementary question is somewhat hypothetical. I think the reports of this speech were somewhat exaggerated. I have indeed done the hon. Member the courtesy of looking into it, and I can assure him that what Lieutenant-General Herbert implied was that we should not believe everything the Russians tell us. I think that is probably wise advice.

Brigade Cap Badges

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Secretary of State for War the estimated cost of equipping the infantry of the line with brigade cap badges.

Mr. J. Amery: About £9,000.

Sir P. Agnew: In view of the fact that this will not contribute either to the fighting or the administrative proficiency of the troops concerned, is this not a case of unnecessary Government expenditure which could be avoided?

Mr. Amery: I cannot accept the first part of my hon. Friend's statement. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we should in any case have had to provide new cap badges for the thirty regiments which were amalgamated.

Mr. Nabarro: The Worcestershires are not being amalgamated.

Local Overseas Allowance (Germany)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War why single men serving in the forces in Germany do not get the local overseas allowance.

Mr. J. Amery: Because it is held that single men are not put to greater essential personal expenditure in Germany than they would be in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fernyhough: On what grounds does the hon. Gentleman justify this? How can he say that a married man who leaves his family in this country is entitled to overseas allowance but in Germany a single man is not? On what basis is the decision made?

Mr. Amery: A special rate of allowance is made to married Regular soldiers who would be entitled to have their families with them in Germany but who are without them. This is simply because we have to allow for the money they send home. That affects their own living standards in Germany, but it is paid out at a lower rate than the ordinary overseas allowance.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is not a married man in this country with his family at a disadvantage in comparison with a married man serving in Germany whose family is in this country? How does the hon. Gentleman justify this position?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member must make allowance for the fact that expenses in Germany outside of N.A.A.F.I. and officers' messes and so on are rather higher than they are in this country.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Army Estimates.

Cavalry Regiments (Amalgamation)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War on what basis the decisions were taken in connection with the amalgamation of certain cavalry regiments announced in the White Paper.

Mr. John Hare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 31st July to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), in which I set out the basis on which these decisions were taken.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the fact that six new cavalry regiments were created during the war and all were disbanded and four new tank battalions were created and all retained, except that later two are to be disbanded, would it not have been better to have treated them all alike and disbanded the four new tank regiments? Is he aware that that would have affected no traditions and thereby it would have avoided the amalgamation of cavalry regiments whose traditions and history stretched back over many years?

Mr. Hare: I do not think any member of the Royal Tank Regiment would take my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War what consultations were held with the honorary colonels of cavalry regiments before it was decided how many cavalry regiments were to be amalgamated and which regiments they would be.

Mr. John Hare: Representative colonels commandant were consulted about the broad division of reductions between the two wings of the Royal Armoured Corps. They were not consulted about the number or selection of regiments for amalgamation.

Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it was a pity not to have made use of the great experience of these very distinguished officers who include, amongst others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)? Had he conculted them further, would it not have avoided a good deal of the annoyance which has been caused by the truculent and dictatorial attitude of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff?

Mr. Hare: I very deeply resent what my hon. Friend has just said about the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I will certainly not follow that remark. I think it was most improper of him to have said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I felt that it was improper. In answering my hon. Friend's Question, which I wish to do with full courtesy, I have told him that we decided on certain matters in consultation with the colonels commandant. After that, the principles were settled and most of the selections followed automatically.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are some hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who prefer a very close amalgamation of regiments in order to promote greater efficiency and economy?

Mr. Hare: I always listen with respect to what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Catterick Camp (Open-Air Baths)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider extending the facilities of the open-air baths at Catterick Camp by the provision of a roof and other necessary


alterations to enable the baths to be used for a longer period than from May to September.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. This proposal is being considered with a number of others.

Mr. Craddock: In view of the great need to extend the facilities at this camp and while thanking the Minister for the attention he has given to the matter, may I ask him to try to hurry up, because this work is absolutely necessary?

Mr. Amery: Like the hon. Member, I have looked into the question myself on the spot and I have every sympathy with the request. I hope that we shall be able to do something to meet it, but this raises issues which go rather wider than Catterick Camp itself.

Royal Scots Fusiliers and Highland Light Infantry

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what reduction of expenditure he estimates will follow the merging of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry.

Mr. John Hare: At this stage it is impossible to give a reliable estimate to the hon. Member, but plainly there will be considerable savings.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he tell us whether that considerable reduction will mean the closing down of the Churchill Barracks at Ayr and handing it over to the civilian authorities?

Mr. Hare: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that quite separate issue.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be better for the hon. Member for Ayr to put a Question on the Order Paper?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the resignations of the colonels of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry.

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for War what reasons prompted him to instruct Major-General Hakewill Smith of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and Major-General Urquhart of the Highland Light Infantry to submit

their resignations as colonels-in-chief of their regiments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why he instructed the colonels of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry to resign;
(2) what recent steps he has taken to induce the Highland Light Infantry to amalgamate with the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state his objections to the wearing of the kilt by the new regiment to be formed from the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry.

Mr. John Hare: I must apologise for the length of the answer.
After discussions, which began in August and continued till early November, only one point of difference remained between the Army Council and the Colonels of the two regiments. This was whether the amalgamated regiment should wear trews or the kilt. On a point of dress like this I would have preferred to meet the wishes of the regiments, but I felt bound for two reasons to maintain the Army Council's decision that the amalgamated regiment should wear trews.
The first reason is that the other colonels of both the Highland and Lowland Brigade have given me their unanimous and emphatic view that the wearing of the kilt by a regiment forming part of the Lowland Brigade is unacceptable to both Highland and Lowland Regiments. The second reason is a practical one. The new amalgamated regiment will be one of four within the Lowland Brigade. In future senior officers and senior N.C.Os. will be on a common roll for promotion within the regiments forming the Brigade. In addition, regiments of the Brigade abroad will be brought up to strength by postings from regiments at home. To submit officers and other ranks to the need to change from kilt to trews, or alternatively from trews to kilt on posting would, I am advised, be most unwelcome to other Lowlanders in the Brigade.
So, on 19th November, I informed the colonels that, if they could not accept the decision of the Army Council on this one outstanding issue, I must of necessity, and with great reluctance, ask them to submit their resignations.
Both officers in their replies reaffirmed their view that the amalgamated regiment should wear the kilt. They recommended that, if this was not acceptable to the Army Council, the two regiments should be disbanded. Accordingly, they offered their resignations. On 2nd December, I informed both colonels that I proposed to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that their resignations should he accepted as soon as their successors had taken office. I am grateful to both colonels for offering to serve until then.
Neither I nor the Army Council consider that the disbandment should be accepted so long as any chance remains of bringing about amalgamation: I have hope that, with good will agreement can be reached.

Sir T. Moore: Whilst accepting a lot of what my right hon. Friend has said as representing the views of the War Office and of the Army Council, may. I ask whether he does not surely agree that it is a short-sighted and ill-advised policy so deeply to offend Scottish sentiment and opinion and also lose the services of two such distinguished officers on a matter which to all of us seems not one of real principle? Would my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Mr. Hare: I have endeavoured in my reply to tell my hon. Friend the two main reasons why I felt I had to act as I did. We ought to try to treat this with a sense of proportion. Taking the purely traditional view, the Royal Scots Fusiliers have had trews throughout their history. From 1809 to 1947, the Highland Light Infantry—before that they were the 71st Foot—wore trews. In other words, if my mathematics are right, in only ten years out of the 148 have the Highland Light Infantry worn the kilt.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there has been an election among the officers in which there was a two-thirds majority for disbanding the regiment? In view of the fact that the Government agree with free elections in the E.T.U. and in Eastern Germany, how can they turn down this one? Does the Minister

realise that if there were a ballot of the men it would be 200 to one for disbanding the regiment? Is he aware that they are not interested in trews or the kilt but in getting back into civvies?

Mr. Hare: I know that the hon. Member feels strongly on this and that one of his great ambitions in life is to have the British Army disbanded altogether.

Mr. J. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday in another place a noble Lord stated, and I read his words from HANSARD—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not refer to debates in another place, except to cite the opinion of a noble Lord who speaks as a Minister. We have nothing to do with what is said by a noble Lord in another place.

Mr. Henderson: I thank you for that correction, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to the House if I have been completely out of order.
In view of the fact that the Armed Services are deficient of recruits, does the Minister think that he will encourage recruitment for the H.L.I. and the Royal Scots Fusiliers by doing away with the kilt? Is he also aware that the City of Glasgow is the home of the H.L.I. and that his decision is looked upon by that City as nothing short of an insult? Will he further say whether it is the fact that there is not a single Scotsman on the Army Council? Would he be good enough to give the name of this evil genius the result of whose work is to do something to the H.L.I. which no foreign Power in combat has been able to do in the past?

Mr. Hare: One of the main reasons why I am so anxious that amalgamation shall, if possible, take place is that the traditional connection of the H.L.I. with that great city shall be continued in the new amalgamated regiment. Disbandment would banish altogether that ancient tradition which both the City of Glasgow and the Army appreciate. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not only Englishmen whose feelings are being hurt in this matter. I have tried to make it clear in my Answer that the other Scottish regiments feel just as strongly that it would be quite inappropriate to have a kilted regiment in the Lowland Brigade.

Mr. Shinwell: With due respect to a section of Scottish opinion with which I am familiar, is it not a shocking state of affairs that in this atomic age we should allow some vested interests to stand in the way of the necessary amalgamation of two very important and highly respected regiments simply because there is a difference of opinion as to whether they should wear trousers or kilts? Surely this sort of thing ought not even to be considered for a single moment at this time.

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman knows my feelings about this. I think the whole matter has been taken out of proportion, and it is my wish—I hope the House will support me—that we should look at it in its proper perspective.

Sir T. Moore: Although you may not think there is anything more to be said on this question, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Answer given by the Minister was so unsatisfactory that I must give notice to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will seek the comments of the new committee on recruitment for the Army on his proposals for the dress of the new regiment formed from the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry.

Mr. John Hare: No, Sir. I have described in answer to an earlier Question the circumstances in which my decision was taken.

Mr. Grimond: In view of what has been said earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson), is the right hon. Gentleman certain that this will not have an effect on recruiting?

Mr. Hare: There may be some temporary effect on recruiting, but I do not think it will be lasting if we can secure agreement on amalgamation.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for War by what authority he called for the resignation of the colonels-in-chief of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry.

Mr. John Hare: I asked these two officers to submit their resignations as I am responsible for advising Her Majesty in

regard to appointments, promotions and other matters affecting the service of officers of the Army.

Mr. Grimond: Did it not appear from earlier statements by the Secretary of State that these colonels-in-chief submitted their resignations without being asked to do so? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm now that they were asked to resign? Can he say whether there is any precedent for such a request?

Mr. Hare: I do not know about the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As to whether there is a precedent, all I would say is that I do not think that because there might be a lack of precedent it should prevent me, in my position, carrying out what I consider to be my duty.

Mr. Shinwell: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a precedent? When I was Secretary of State for War I called upon a major-general, a very useful general, to resign, and he did so.

Mr. Hare: The question was whether there was any precedent for a colonel of a regiment being asked for his resignation, and it was that point that I answered.

R.E. Demonstration, Carnkie (Damage)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted into the explosion staged by the Royal Engineers at Carnkie, Redruth, Cornwall, on 1st December, which, though conforming to the rules, caused unexpected blast damage, with a view to finding out whether the technical calculations need revision.

Mr. J. Amery: Yes, Sir. Preliminary inquiries have already been made which indicate that the damage was caused by a freak effect of the explosion. A more detailed investigation will be made, and we shall examine the current regulations in light of what is discovered.

Mr. Hayman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but might I remind him that his predecessor wrote to me two years ago about a somewhat similar mishap in another part of my constituency? Will he give an assurance that no further demonstrations of this kind will take place until he has received a report and had time to come to a decision upon it?

Mr. Amery: That is a rather different question. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me notice of it, I will certainly look into it.

Royal Tank Regiment (Officers)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War how the 18 lieutenant-colonels and 180 majors now on the strength of the Royal Tank Regiment are at present empolyed; and if he will make a statement about their future employment after phase one of the reorganisation of the Army has been completed.

Mr. J. Amery: Eight lieutenant-colonels and 55 majors are employed in regimental duty. The remainder are serving in staff and other appointments. After phase one of the reduction, we expect to have regimental appointments for five lieutenant-colonels and about 30 majors. Final details of extra-regimental vacancies are not yet available.

Mr. Johnson: How many battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment will be maintained after phase one? Is it not four? How, then, will there be five lieutenant-colonels employed on regimental duty?

Mr. Amery: I do not think there is any difficulty about that.

Free Travel Facilities (Wives)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities are available to ex-Service men who marry while on service overseas to enable them to bring their wives to this country when the ex-Service man has returned home.

Mr. J. Amery: I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the regulations covering entitlement to family passages. If a soldier, of his own free will, leaves his wife behind him when he returns home for discharge he has no further right to a free passage for her to join him; but this is a rare occurrence and a case for granting exceptional treatment would be considered on its merits.

Mr. Sorensen: If I bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention the case of a soldier in my constituency whose wife is still in Malaya, will he sympathetically consider ways and means of bringing her back to her husband?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir; of course.

Following are the regulations:—

To be eligible for a passage for his family an officer must be 25 years or over, serving on a Regular engagement; and a soldier must be 21 years or over, serving on a regular engagement. When a Service man marries at a station overseas approved as suitable for families, his family is eligible for a free passage home provided that:

(a) the wife was a member of the Women's Service or a Service family, and so entitled to a passage on that account; or
(b) the wife has been resident in the country concerned for at least six months before the expected end of the soldier's tour overseas.

Rocket Range, South Uist and Benbecula

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War what training and other use is to be made by the Army of the land, acquired in South Uist and Benbecula, for the now largely abandoned guided-missile range; when occupation of the site is to begin; for what periods; and by what numbers of troops and other personnel.

Mr. John Hare: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence announced last week, the range will be used for the firing of surface-to-surface guided weapons. It is unlikely that preparatory work will be completed in time for the summer of 1958, but the range will come into use in 1959. About 250 troops will he in the camp in summer and a small maintenance party during the rest of the year.

Mr. MacMillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication to the local authorities as soon as possible of the amount of civilian labour required and such things as that, and what constructional work is likely to start during the next two months, so that they can plan the return to normal civilian life of the area? We shall be very much obliged if he can do so?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air to ascertain how we can help in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Personal Case

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War why the letter received by his Department on Monday, 2nd December, from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange, marked very urgent,


regarding Craftsman J. Donoghue, 44th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, has not yet been replied to.

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member will have received my reply to her letter. It took a week to answer because the details she required had to be obtained from an overseas command.

Mrs. Braddock: While I thank the Minister for the reply which I received yesterday, does he not think that in serious circumstances of this kind something ought to be done to give the parents some assurance about the position? This matter has been going on since 21st November, and the parents had no indication at all, except a very short letter from the officer in charge, that anything concerning the boy was wrong. Is there no way of ensuring that when serious inquiries are being made parents are given some immediate information about what is happening?

Mr. Amery: It was precisely because the circumstances were serious that I did not wish to misinform either the hon. Lady or the parents.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Office Facilities, Stoke-on-Trent

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster General if he will give the dates upon which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was promised a new central post office for the city of Stoke-on-Trent; to what extent plans have been prepared; and whether he will so modify them that the new post office shall be as modern and beautiful as the new post offices in the Royal Parade, Plymouth.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): My researches show that the hon. Member was informed, in July, 1939, that the offer of a site in Campbell Place for a new central public office had been accepted. He was informed in August, 1951, that provision was being made in the 1952–53 Estimates for certain rebuilding. A review of the position had, however, resulted in a decision to abandon the plan for a new public office building in Stoke and to use our resources for the enlargement and modernisation of the

post office at South Wolfe Street. I regret that the hon. Member has not been so informed until now.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it a good policy to abandon plans which have been prepared? Does not the contribution which the City of Stoke-on-Trent is making to the country's economy merit a worthy central post office?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir; I do not dissent in any way from what the hon. Gentleman says. We have to satisfy ourselves that the service that we give in our various offices is commensurate with the importance and activities of the place concerned, and that we have done in the case of Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General his intentions with regard to the construction of new post offices to meet the urgent and growing needs of the Meir, Wood Farm, and Longton.

Mr. K. Thompson: Reasonable post office facilities are already provided in these places, and the construction of new offices is not at present contemplated.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the Minister considers the facilities at Meir reasonable, will he take it from me that they are most unreasonable? If he doubts my word, will he get one of his reliable officers to go there and make an investigation, and then I will rely on what he says?

Mr. Thompson: Meir has a sub-post office which I am informed is adequate, but if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied I will have further inquiries made and, if I can, will make a personal visit to the area.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for new post offices in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, in the Newstead and Blurton area, and in the Trent Vale and Harsford area; and how these will compare with the new Plymouth post offices.

Mr. K. Thompson: Adequate services are already provided for most of these areas by two sub-offices in Trent Vale, by one in Hanford, and by one in the old part of Blurton. I am proposing to authorise a new sub-office at Newstead, and applications are now being invited


from the occupiers of the shops recently built. The new offices in Plymouth are Crown post offices.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not know the difference between a Crown and a sub-post office—I plead guilty—but has the Minister seen the new post offices in Plymouth? Will he take it from me that they are a credit to whoever is responsible and, if they can have them in Plymouth, why should not we have them in Stoke-on-Trent?

Mr. Thompson: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about our efforts in Plymouth. In deciding where we will have Crown offices we have to consider whether they are justified by the weight of business, and whether sub-post offices will provide a better, more localised service for the people who want the services we have to offer.

Stamp Books

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for revising books of stamps in view of the new postage rates; and whether he will consider introducing a 10s. stamp book.

Mr. K. Thompson: A new 4s. 6d. book containing eighteen 3d. stamps was put on sale in October. Early in the New Year the present 2s. 6d. book will be replaced by a 3s. book containing six stamps each of ½d., 1d., 1½d, and 3d. denominations; and the contents of the 5s. book will be changed to six stamps each of the ½d., 1d. and 2½d. denominations and twelve 3d. stamps.
I will keep in mind my hon. Friend's point about a 10s. book, but I think it is very doubtful whether the sales would justify the cost of producing and stocking one.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As it takes about 25 per cent. more in value to post a given number of letters and postcards than it did previously—

Mr. Thompson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: —would my hon. Friend consider whether it would not be a good idea to have a 7s. 6d. book, which would enable one to post almost the same amount of letters as did the 5s. book?

Mr. Thompson: No, Sir, we have to keep in mind the multiplicity of stock

items kept in post offices and how best we can meet the convenience of our customers. The 5s. books are usually adequate for most purposes and my hon. Friend can buy two for 10s.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view of his hon. Friends that it now requires 7s. 6d. to give us what 5s. used to give us before the Government really got going?

Mr. Thompson: I tried as politely as I could to indicate dissent while my hon. Friend was speaking.

Letter-Boxes (Design)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General what interest was shown by the building trade and the general public in the Post Office exhibit of larger letter-boxes at the recent building exhibition.

Mr. K. Thompson: I am glad to say that some 2,000 specific inquiries were made by architects, builders, municipal officials, and the general public. It was the universal opinion among inquirers that the larger letter-plate openings would be of great help, both to the public and the Post Office.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General what further efforts will be made to emphasise the importance of business and professional people having commercial size letter-boxes at their residences as well as their offices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: We propose to embark upon a publicity campaign for the use of larger letter plates, at residences as well as offices, by poster, film, press advertising and exhibition, in the spring of 1958, when it is expected that supplies of the new letter plates, conforming to the new standard, will be generally available from the manufacturers. We are also seeking the co-operation of builders, architects and local authorities.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In this campaign, will my hon. Friend publicise the fact that there are many technical magazines and other magazines, such as The Director, which do not go through the ordinary size domestic letter-box?

Mr. Bence: Too many directors.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend also aware that I have installed a commercial size letter-box at my house and that it has one great advantage, that one does not have to get up at 7.30 in the morning to receive packets from the postman?

Mr. Thompson: We are very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Postal Charges (Books)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make an investigation into the question of the transit of books by inland post with a view to reducing, if possible, the present heavy postal charges, particularly on single copies.

Mr. K. Thompson: Single copies of books in the post normally go by the printed paper service. I will keep in mind my hon. Friend's point in any future review of that service, but I can hold out no hope at present of any reduction in the postal charges for books.

Dr. Johnson: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware that this single copy book post is the lifeline of literature and culture in this country? Secondly, is he aware that the book trade look with both envy and admiration at what his right hon. Friend has done for telephone subscribers and are very anxious indeed that he should do something similar in their case?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir, we will bear the interests of those concerned in this matter very much in mind in any future review of the position.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter of the application of his own Postmaster-General's regulations dealing with the practice, which has now become common, of posting books abroad to Britain in order to avoid the increased postal charges?

Mr. Thompson: We have had no great trouble over that situation up to now. It arises from special circumstances in one or more foreign countries and, if difficulties should arise, we know how to deal with them.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the special rates for postage of books abroad, it would be desirable to apply a similar principle to the transit of books in this country?

Mr. Thompson: We bear all these considerations in mind, but we have to strike a point at which our services pay for themselves without incurring too much of a loss to be borne by other users of the post.

Premium Savings Bonds

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will have the mechanism of his Premium Bond machine examined to see why it so often selects numbers beginning with the letter "Z".

Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir. ERNIE is proving entirely satisfactory. The initial letter indicates the denomination of the bond. Bond unit numbers with the denomination letter "Z" appear most frequently because more units have been sold in this denomination than in any of the others.

Mr. Hynd: As I understand that the "Z" denotes bonds of £500 denominations, does not that reply prove two things? First, that it is true, as has always been contended from this side of the House, that the bulk of the money put into Premium Bonds is not new savings but money put into a tax-free investment that would otherwise have been invested in more profitable enterprises and, secondly, that what the old Book said is still true, "whosoever hath, to him shall be given"?

Mr. Thompson: I will not enter into a discussion of the doubtful morality, and the even more doubtful mathematics of the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that there is more money invested in bonds bearing the initial letter "Z" than in any of the others. That letter, therefore, appears more frequently in the prize list. I am happy to say that this tendency is showing signs of falling off as more small investors get their money into the draw.

TELEPHONE SERVICE

Sunderland

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General by how many the number of telephone subscribers has been reduced in Sunderland during the last six months.

Mr. K. Thompson: Fifty-nine.

Urmston and Longford

Mr. Storey: asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones installed at the Urmston, West, Exchange between 1st May and 1st October, 1957, and the number of outstanding applications on the latter date.

Mr. K. Thompson: I can only give figures for the Urmston Exchange as a whole. One hundred and eighty-nine telephones were installed between 1st May and 1st October, 1957. On the latter date 644 applications were outstanding of which 98 were in course of provision. Three new cabling schemes are in hand to enable us to provide service to the waiting applicants. They will be brought into use progressively between mid-1958 and early 1959.

Mr. Storey: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department promised that they would clear the 350 applications at Urmston, West before the end of August? Can he explain why the figures are so far short of that total for the whole of Urmston?

Mr. Thompson: I have no knowledge of that promise at the moment, but if my hon. Friend will let me have the papers I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Storey: asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones installed at the Longford Exchange between 1st May and 1st September, 1957, and the number of outstanding applications on the latter date.

Mr. K. Thompson: Fifty telephones were installed between 1st- May and 1st September. The number of outstanding applications at 1st September is not available, but at 1st October the figure was 179 of which 37 were in course of provision. New cables are being laid and this work will be completed by next March enabling us to give service to nearly all others now waiting.

Mr. Storey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in June his Department told me that it would install 180 telephones in that area before the end of September? Will he explain why it has failed to do that?

Mr. Thompson: Indeed, I will. If my hon. Friend will let me have the particulars, I will go into the matter personally.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)

Mr. J. Griffiths: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not, at the forthcoming N.A.T.O. Conference, enter into any commitment involving a fundamental change in the structure of N.A.T.O. and the surrender of any degree of national sovereignty without the prior approval of Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There is about to be held in Paris an important meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers. Its purpose is, by calling the heads of Governments as well as the Foreign Secretaries into counsel, to reaffirm the broad purposes which brought the Treaty into being and to discuss what practical adjustments should be made to make it more effective as an instrument to resist aggression.
The purpose of the conference is to confer and I would certainly not think it right to publish in advance any proposals which we might put forward for discussion with our colleagues and allies.
With regard to the assurance that I am asked to give, I would only say this. Any agreement or treaty in a sense impinges on national sovereignty. The making of agreements or modifications to existing agreements is historically and constitutionally a duty laid upon the Executive.
The Government's authority depends upon their ability to command the confidence of Parliament.

Mr. Griffiths: While fully recognising what the Prime Minister has said about the right of the Government in this matter, will he remember the words he himself used in the debate on the Address, when he said:
Nevertheless, whatever may be the outcome of these discussions at N.A.T.O. I feel that in the near future—perhaps the comparatively near future—the nations of the free world must make an even more significant contribution of their national severeignty to the common cause than hitherto."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 39.]
The Prime Minister himself described that as constituting a turning point in our history.
In view of the fundamental changes involved, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be desirable, before any such commital of that character is made, that Parliament itself should give prior consent?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a matter not of fundamental change, but of degree. I am bound to say—and I believe that it is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House—that in the modern world, and in view of the problems with which we are confronted in the next generation, if we are to try to deal with the immense pressures which may be brought upon the free world, countries have to get together and work together in a way which was not necessary perhaps one hundred years ago. Anybody who does not take that view seems to me to be closing his mind to the realities of the situation.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not dissenting from what the Prime Minister says about the merits or demerits of the proposals. What I am saying is that a commitment of this kind, which is obviously a committal of the whole country and not only of the Government but of future Governments, is of such an important and fundamental character that, having regard to the important which the Prime Minister himself attached to it in the speech to which I have referred, it is desirable that Parliament should give its prior approval to any such change.

The Prime Minister: If one looks back, the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and our adherence to that Treaty was in itself a tremendous step. It was taken by the Government of the day on their own authority, resting upon the hope and belief that they would have the support of Parliament. To abandon that doctrine would indeed be a fundamental change in our constitution.

Mr. Griffiths: I must press the Prime Minister. I am not discussing the abandonment of the doctrine. I am discussing a change contemplated in the right hon. Gentleman's own speech. I put the question again. Will not the proposal be a tremendous commitment for our country? I am not asking that that commitment should not be undertaken I am asking that the voice of the nation, through Parliament, should be heard.

The Prime Minister: Nothing more than it states must be read into my Answer. I wish to stand on the sound constitutional doctrine. So far as I know, nothing is contemplated in the possible changes, modifications or adaptations of our N.A.T.O. arrangements, which may be necessary with the passing of years and with new situations, comparable with the importance of first entering N.A.T.O. ten years ago.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the integration of forces under the control of the Supreme Commander and the N.A.T.O. Council of Ministers—which implies some renunciation of sovereignty and with which I agree, having had something to do with the formation of N.A.T.O.—and the decision about when and how those forces should be used? Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that distinction?

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes; but I did not think that it was in that respect that the Question was asked. I remind the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that the rule of N.A.T.O. is, of course, still the unanimity rule.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. While recognising the rights of Privy Councillors in these matters, would it not be fairer if hon. Members on this side of the House who, after all, have as deep an interest in this matter as hon. Members opposite, were given an opportunity to speak on it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member had had a little patience, I was about to call an hon. Member on his side of the House.

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at this important meeting in Paris he will carry with him the best wishes of all thinking people in this country who are interested in the cause of freedom?

Mr. Wade: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if we are to make any progress towards the maintenance of peace, either on a world or a regional basis, we must not be chary about forgoing some of our national sovereignty?
May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the discussions in Paris, the political structure of N.A.T.O. will be considered, or will consideration be limited to defence matters?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The discussions will cover a very wide range. We are one of 15 members and, as I said, we go not only to talk ourselves but, I hope, to listen to our 14 colleagues. That is why it is much better to have the conference, to see what comes out of it. If something does come out of it, I suppose that every Government will have to rest upon the support they can get in their own Parliaments to make it effective.

Mr. G. Brown: If that is the Prime Minister's position, is it not curious that every newspaper this morning carries a story of the four principles which the Government are known, through hints dropped by official spokesmen, now to favour for inclusion in the agenda? A month ago we had the same story, which I challenged at the Box, but which was then held by an official spokesman to be the Prime Minister "flying a kite".
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the difference between now and the setting up of N.A.T.O. is that so many kites are being flown by official spokesmen that we are entitled to ask him to be at least as specific as are the official spokesmen with the Press outside the House?

The Prime Minister: I know nothing about official or unofficial spokesmen. I read a great many suggestions in the Press and some of them are about things which have never entered my mind. Some are very interesting and valuable suggestions, but I am not responsible for what the Press does. I am only trying to state what I and most hon. Members opposite, I think, believe to be the true doctrine, that, of course, the Executive of the day—how else can it live?—must have full consideration for the support it can get in the House, but it must not abandon its duty and enter a conference of this kind tied, for such a conference would then not be a true conference or a true meeting of minds, a true meeting of the heads of Governments.

Major Legge-Bourke: In joining with my hon. Friend who has wished the Prime Minister well at the forthcoming conference, and entirely agreeing with him that the signing of a treaty to some extent restricts sovereignty, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the very important difference between signing a treaty which one is later free to seek to amend, and joining a supranational

authority from which there can be no extrication later, should one so desire it? Can my right hon. Friend give some assurances on those lines?

The Prime Minister: I will bear that point in mind, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole basis of N.A.T.O. is the unanimity rule.

Mr. Royle: Does not all this prove that it would have been very desirable to have had a debate in this House before the N.A.T.O. conference?

The Prime Minister: I think that others of us might have drawn the opposite deduction.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a short statement to make to the House.

CYPRUS (DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Speaker's Ruling

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked me, on 3rd December, in regard to certain documents connected with Cyprus, whether
If perchance the documents are referred to at all in this House cannot we claim to have the whole of them laid upon the Table?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 190.]
I have now informed myself on these documents, of which I had then not heard, and am told that they were designed as briefs to be used by officers of the Cyprus Government. They were marked, "Confidential" and circulated to heads of Departments; there was no decision on the part of the Cyprus Government to publish them; and their disclosure was without that Government's consent. It appears that they were referred to in an article in Reynolds News on 22nd September last. I have no knowledge of them in any other form.
For the House to be able to demand that documents should be laid upon the Table, three conditions must be fulfilled.
In the first place, the Minister must have quoted from the document; it is not sufficient that he should have referred to it or even to have summarised or paraphrased it in part or in whole.
Secondly, the document must be a "despatch or other State paper"; the rule cannot be applied to private documents.
Thirdly, the rule cannot be applied to documents which are stated by the Minister to be of such a nature that their disclosure would be inconsistent with the public interest.
In the case about which I am asked neither Minister has quoted from these documents. On 31st October, the Under-Secretary of State, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), referred to them without any indication of their contents. On 3rd December, the Secretary of State did the same in reply to another Question from the same hon. Lady.
That seems to me to conclude the matter and to bring these documents outside the rule of the House which enjoins that certain quoted documents should be laid on the Table.
Had these documents been quoted by Ministers it would have been necessary to consider the nature of the documents.
On 10th August, 1893—my birthday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Mr. Speaker Peel ruled
that confidential documents or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a Department and the Department, cited in debate, are not necessarily laid upon the Table of the House, especially if the Minister declares that they are of a confidential nature.
But, as I have said, the fact that neither Minister has quoted from the documents

makes it unnecessary to pursue these aspects of the matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In wishing you many happy returns of the day in anticipation, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am grateful to you for the consideration that you have given this matter? As you know, the documents were referred to without being quoted in the House. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, in reply to the Questions to which you have referred, did not deny that such documents existed. They were documents written by a servant a the Crown, in which disparaging remarks were made about Members of the House, and we felt, and still feel—while being grateful for and accepting your Ruling—that the Secretary of State owes it to the House to lay the documents on the Table, so that the remarks made by this officer of the Crown about Members of the House may be considered.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister and for the House in general.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section thirty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce seeks to ensure that every private patient of a registered medical practitioner shall be entitled to be supplied with drugs, medicines and appliances on the same terms as patients who are registered with a medical practitioner who provides general medical services under the Act.
This Bill, the principle of which is supported by the British Medical Association, is designed to remedy a longstanding injustice which has been the cause of a continuing and growing irritation and grievance not only among private patients, but among the medical profession as a whole. Before the introduction of the 1946 Act—which came into force in July, 1948—the Ministry of Health issued a circular entitled, "The New National Health Service", in which it was stated that
Everyone, rich or poor, man, woman or child, can use it"—
that is, the National Health Service—
or any part of it. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers.
The last part of that statement is certainly very true. We are all paying for the National Health Service, both in the form of the recently doubled contributions and in the form of taxation.
But the first part of that statement is true only if one is registered with a National Health Service practitioner. If one prefers to be a private patient and not to clutter up the out-patients' department, or to fill a hospital bed, one not only has to pay for one's doctor but also for drugs and medicines.
Why was this unfair discrimination first introduced into the 1946 Act, despite the Conservative opposition at the time? I think that the answer lies in a speech made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who was then Minister of Health when, in an

Adjournment debate on 19th July, 1948, he said:
I should also like to make it quite clear, because there seems to be misunderstanding in some quarters about it, that if a person remains as a private patient, that person will also have to pay for drugs. That of itself, may have a chastening effect as time goes by. When individuals find that, having become private patients, they not only have to pay the doctor himself, but have to pay the chemist's bills as well, and as that knowledge grows, it may be that the area of private practice will progressively diminish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 197.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hall: That is apparently what hon. Members opposite like. How right the then Minister was; private practice has diminished. Today, it is estimated that of the population available for registration about 3 per cent. only are not registered as National Health Service patients. That is a 25 per cent. drop since the figure was first estimated in 1949.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. Some of us are a little confused, and would like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If this Bill became law it would seem to involve a substantial increase in public expenditure. Is it in order to bring in such a Bill under private Members' procedure?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Member with the same point in mind. The Standing Orders provide that if a Bill places a charge upon public funds it cannot be brought in until there has been a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House sanctioning the expenditure. I was waiting to see whether the hon. Member who is addressing the House had any proposals to meet this point. I must decline to put the Question if he has no scheme for financing it which does not put a charge on public funds, or there has not been a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. Hall: As I understand the rules of order governing this procedure, one cannot introduce a Bill which proposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or the Revenue. This Bill, by one of its Clauses, imposes a charge upon the National Land Fund, which, I understand, is in order.

Mr. Speaker: Procedurally, that would be in order. Whether it be feasible is not for me to say.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I understand that during the course of an earlier discussion on the use of the National Land Fund it was ruled that it would be a charge upon the Exchequer. On a previous occasion when the advice of the Clerk of the House was sought on this matter, that is the advice which was given.

Mr. Speaker: I understand not. I understand that it would not involve a charge on public funds, because the National Land Fund is not a fund, as I understand it, which is progressively refreshed by contributions from the Exchequer according to its expenditure. It is a fund which, when it is finished, no more exists, and the fact that a heavier charge were placed upon it would not of itself inevitably imply a charge on public funds.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Since the funds on which the hon. Gentleman proposes ultimately to rely—if he gets the leave of the House to introduce his Bill—are to be disposed of in a manner already determined by the House, which does not include any such purpose as the hon. Member says, and as it is clearly and manifestly inappropriate in any case to use funds of that kind for so different a purpose as is involved in this Bill, does not it become clear that to seek to obtain leave to bring in a Bill on that basis is sheer impertinence and an abuse of the procedure of the House.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will take this matter calmly.
The position of the National Land Fund is that if the House decided to put a charge on it which exhausted it, that is the end of the Land Fund. It is for the House to determine whether it will do that. The rest of the hon. Member's argument was addressed to the merits of the proposal. I think it in order to move for leave to introduce a Bill placing the charge on the Land Fund. As I said earlier, whether that is a feasible, desirable or practical course is not for me to say.

Mr. Silverman: This is really a matter of great importance. I think that I may say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that no one has defended the rights of private Members in these matters more than I have and I do not seek now to stifle the discussion; but unless the rules are observed, the whole procedure which the hon. Member is praying in aid becomes an absurdity and loses any authority in the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have said that when the moneys in this Fund have been absorbed by charges which the House has already placed upon it, there will be nothing left. In that case, the hon. Member would have to rely on some other way of raising funds and it must, therefore, become a public charge and require a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that necessarily follows. If the hon. Member obtained leave to introduce the Bill, and it was supported in the House, no money from the Exchequer could be spent under it without a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House. But I have only to deal with the narrow, procedural point of whether it is in order to make the proposition with which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is dealing, and I must rule that it is.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It so happens that I have personal experience of this matter, Sir. At an earlier date I sought to make a charge upon the Land Fund in respect of expenditure upon National Parks. The proposal was ruled out of order, because it was argued that it was impossible to make a charge of that kind. I suggest that this case is completely parallel so far as the rules of order of the House are concerned. Here the hon. Member is seeking to impose a charge by the use of the Land Fund, which is the very procedure I attempted to use some time ago.

Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect the incident to which the hon. Member refers, but I have made inquiries on this point, having foreseen the difficulty which the hon. Member might experience when I was informed that he had this proposition to make. I am acting on the best advice I can procure. I am told that it is in order. I have ruled on the matter and I cannot say more.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey) rose—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Obstruction.

Mr. Mellish: Without wishing in any way to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I put this point to you as one who has a day-to-day contact with the working of the National Health Service? If what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) proposes comes to pass, and private patients, about whom he is rightly concerned, obtain what he desires them to obtain, the dressings and medicines which they would receive under the Health Service would be provided with money which comes from the Exchequer to the Ministry of Health. Is it not an abuse of the privileges of this House to talk about the National Health Service and a charge on the National Land Fund when, in fact, the money comes direct from the Exchequer, and we should have to get more money from the Exchequer to do what the hon. Member for Wycombe desires?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is addressing himself to the merits, or, as he might say, the demerits of the proposal to which the House has been asked to listen. This House has before now entertained proposals of which it did not approve, but that does not mean that they were out of order, and I must ask the House to allow the hon. Member for Wycombe to continue.

Mr. Fernyhough: I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether it would be in order for me to bring in a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act—

Sir A. V. Harvey: That is hypothetical.

Mr. Fernyhough: —and for the expense involved to be covered by the Land Fund. I should like to amend Section 62—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be glad to consider the hon. Member's Bill when he presents it. Mr. Hall.

Mr. Silverman: I must respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my hon. Friend's question, hypothetical though it may be, bears very closely on what we are discussing. If this procedure upon which the hon. Member is relying is in order, it must follow

that the sacredly guarded rule, which has existed for many generations, that proposals which involve a charge on public funds cannot be made by private Members is completely overthrown. It cannot be limited to this case, which means that in future any hon. Member who wishes to introduce a Bill, which otherwise would be out of order, can render it in order by this highly controversial and, as I submitted earlier, impertinent procedure.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: On a point of order. Having listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) about the purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you this question. Drugs and medicines, etc., are very often dispensed even for private patients by dispensers working in hospitals. Their salaries are a charge on the Treasury. What will be the position if this Bill is accepted? Will the amount of money necessary to pay the salaries of those people in the hospital service, whose time will be taken in making up medicine and dispensing the requirements of private patients, be taken from the Land Fund and paid over to the Treasury to help meet the added expense to the hospital service?

Mr. Speaker: That may be an insuperable obstacle to the House's accepting the Bill, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: May I, on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, respectfully put it to you that involved in this matter is an issue of fundamental Parliamentary importance and common sense? Surely the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), by bringing in the Land Fund, is obviously engaging in a subterfuge to avoid one of the oldest constitutional doctrines behind the procedure of the House of Commons, namely, that nobody can propose public expenditure except a Minister of the Crown. That doctrine is of importance from the point of view of responsible control of public finance.
Therefore, I suggest that, on grounds of constitutional tradition of Parliament and on grounds of common sense, the hon. Member, whether on this occasion or on any other one, ought not to be allowed to go in for a little bit of clever


foolishness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly it is—for the purpose of cynically evading the constitutional rule.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and with a great deal of interest. Of course, it is a fact that there are in existence these funds, whatever the merits or demerits may be, and it has been held that the proposed imposition of charges upon them does not require a Money Resolution. I am bound by the narrow precedent. The House can listen to all the arguments, and decide whether the Bill is desirable or feasible.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It is impossible.

Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to speak outside my jurisdiction, but I would like to hear how the proposal of the hon. Member for Wycombe would work.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is an important matter, Mr. Speaker. You may recall, Sir, that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury brought forward proposals a short time ago to reduce the size of the Land Fund. When he was deploying his arguments he insisted that any claim upon that Fund was a charge upon the Exchequer. That was the argument which he put before this House and it was on the basis of that argument that the reduction which he proposed in the Land Fund was finally agreed to in this House.
Apart from that argument, which supports the understanding I had, and was given, in fact, by the Clerk of the House, that any proposals for the use of the Land Fund would be a charge on the Exchequer, there is the fact that the reduced sum of money which now remains in the Land Fund may well prove to be insufficient to meet the demand of any proposals for providing free drugs to private patients.
I submit, therefore, that unless evidence can be given that there is a sufficient sum of money in the Fund as now reduced—the Fund is now at a very low ebb, and would not be sufficient to meet any charges such as are proposed by the Bill which the hon. Member seeks to introduce—the inevitable extra charges would fall upon the National Exchequer.

Mr. Speaker: The true position would then be—so far as the hon. Member for Wycombe has been allowed to tell us

what is in his mind; and if he has his way and the Land Fund is exhausted—that the purposes of the Bill become nugatory. That is all. There is yet no proposal to put a proper charge upon the Exchequer, apart from the charge on the Fund. That is the procedural point. Mr. Hall.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, All Saints) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will allow this matter to proceed. I may be wrong about it, but I am acting on the best advice I can obtain. If I am wrong, we can put it right. I have stated what I believe to be the position and I am, therefore, bound to listen to the hon. Member for Wycombe. Otherwise, I should have refused to put his Motion to the House.

Mr. D. Howell: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, which has not so far been touched upon. In view of the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, suppose that the Bill is introduced, has a Second Reading and goes to Committee. Would it then be in order in Committee for an hon. Member to seek to delete the Clause dealing with the Land Fund and to submit in its place another Clause to finance the Bill by another means?

Mr. Speaker: If it were a proposal to finance the Bill by means of a charge upon the Exchequer, that proposal would be out of order, because it would need a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. Hall.

Mr. Hall: I have listened with great interest to the guidance you have given hon. Members and to the Rulings on the points of order. I hope that the time which has been taken up by them will not be deducted from my own allocation of time. I was dealing with the 25 per cent. fall in the number of private patients since 1949, and I was about to add that in a debate in a Standing Committee on 6th July, 1949, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale declared that if doctors were permitted to prescribe for private patients the number of private patients would increase rapidly and that would sabotage the National Health Service. That fear would only be well founded if the standard of medical attention given under the National Health Service were lower than—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it not now perfectly clear from the argument of the hon. Member for Wycombe that the hon. Member is concerned with a charge on public funds? The arguments which he is quoting from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and that with which the hon. Member is combating it, are that one was saying that the State ought to pay more and the other was saying that the State ought not; and the purpose of the hon. Member's Bill is to reverse the decision which my right hon. Friend made as Minister of Health. It is clear that the Land Fund point is merely a transparent subterfuge to undermine one of the constitutional safeguards in our procedure in the House of Commons and I again invite you to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an outrageous abuse of the procedure of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say that.

Mr. Hall: I shall be glad to go on with my argument, Sir, if I can do so uninterrupted. I was pointing out that the fear that a great number of private patients would sabotage the National Health Service was unfounded unless the service given by the National Health Service was grossly inferior to private practice. What is true is that the standard in private practice is very high, and provides a basis of comparison with the National Health Service which must be of great value.
Nevertheless, there are two difficulties which have, so far, prevented an Amendment of this kind to the Act. The first is the problem of applying to private doctors the same control over excessive prescribing as exists over National Health Service doctors. Secondly, there is the additional cost, to which much reference has already been made. The first objection is no longer valid. It has been made abundantly clear that private doctors, almost without exception, are prepared to subscribe to the same conditions as apply to control of the National Health Service doctors. The second objection is much more serious, in view of the Government's present economic policy and fight against inflation.
In April, 1953, the cost of medicines which might result from a Bill of this kind was estimated by the Ministry of Health to be about£1½ million. Since then, despite the higher cost of medicines, and

allowing for the charges that have been imposed on the Service, the number of private patients has fallen to such an extent that the present estimate is about £1 million. That estimate does not take into consideration the saving which would accrue when a private patient decides to take his treatment at home instead of, as is too often the case now, being forced into hospital by the present high cost of medicines.
It does not take into account the saving in time and money where patients have two doctors. It has been reliably estimated that more than 50 per cent. of them have a National Health Service doctor as well. It does not take into account the saving to the State where a doctor elects to do private instead of National Health Service work. Taking all that into account, it has been estimated by those better qualified than myself that the additional cost may be £500,000. There is enough money in the National Land Fund if that is the basis of the objection.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As the hon. Member says that there is enough in the Fund, will he kindly say how much is in the Fund at present to meet the charges he is proposing to impose on it?

Mr. Hall: As I am allowed only ten minutes—

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is proposing the use of funds and does not know how much money there is in the Fund. He cannot propose in this House to use funds for this purpose when he cannot tell the House whether there are funds there. Therefore, there is obviously a charge on the Exchequer. I suggest that this is completely out of order.

Mr. Speaker: It may be nonsense, but it is not out of order.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that there is a great deal of disquiet—probably on both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly among hon. Members on this side. I am sorry that it does not include hon. Members opposite. There is a feeling that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who has brought the Motion before the House, is


trying to circumvent the Standing Order. That may or may not be a right impression, but it appeared to me, a few moments ago, that you yourself entertained some slight doubt on this point.
The point I want to put to you now is whether it would not be to the convenience of the House and in the best interests of our traditions and procedure if, in view of the difficulties which have arisen, the hon. Member would now ask leave to withdraw the Motion, on the understanding that he could bring it before the House when you have had time to consider your opinion.

Mr. Hall: If I may be allowed to continue my argument, I was about to point out that the figure of £500,000, estimated to be the maximum additional cost, is about one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total service—

Mr. William Ross: Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose—

Mr. Hall: I have not time to give way—

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to all that has been said on this matter and we are making no progress at all on this so-called Ten Minutes Rule Bill. I do, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Wycombe to allow me to consider this matter a little further. I have no power to stop him. So long as he is procedurally correct it is not my place nor in my power to stop him and I would not attempt to do so; but in view of what has been expressed about the dubiety of these proposals, I think I ought to have a further chance of studying the matter. That would be without prejudice to the hon. Member's right to reintroduce the Bill at another time. I make that suggestion, but if he proceeds I will not stop him.

Mr. Hall: I am in a slight difficulty—

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill imposing a charge on the Land Fund without the Queen's Recommendation? Does not that precedent clearly establish the fact that this proceeding is in order?

Mr. Speaker: No, this is a proposal by a private Member; Governments have different powers.

Mr. Hall: I had some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in hearing exactly what you were proposing to me, because of interruptions on the other side of the House, but I understand that you are suggesting that I should withdraw the Motion without prejudice to my right to bring it forward again. In those circumstances, if I did withdraw it, could I bring it forward again tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I think that tomorrow would be a little early to let me have a chance of considering the whole position further. I suggest Tuesday or Wednesday next week; it cannot be done on a Thursday.

Mr. Hall: In view of the discussion that has taken place on points of order and without any wish to offend the proprieties of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should not attribute to other motives they might have themselves—and in view of the fact that my right is safeguarded and that this does not prejudice my opportunity of bringing forward the Bill again under the same procedure, I am prepared now to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. When you consider your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, will you consider not only the point about Standing Orders and precedents, but future trends which will be engendered by this and the precedent it will set up by which anyone on any occasion could bring forward any Bill by this artifice? Will you consider—as I know you will—the general well-being of the House in that respect?

Mr. Speaker: It was for that reason I made my request to the hon. Member for Wycombe. I want to have a further look at the possible repercussions. I am anxious to preserve the rights of hon. Members to introduce Bills if they are procedurally correct, but I thought that I should have a further look at this and, therefore, I am obliged to the hon. Member for Wycombe for the action that he has taken.

Mr. R. Bell: Further to that point of order, Sir. When giving the matter your


consideration, including its general significance, will you bear in mind that this particular point was brought to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure, which has just reported to the House, and that the Select Committee did not recommend any change about availability of these funds for charging without the Queen's Recommendation?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will direct me to the reference so that I can study it further.

Mr. Ede: May I ask that in considering this you will bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when this matter came under discussion during last year's Finance Bill and he tried to prove that there was no money in the Fund if anybody wanted to use it?

Mr. Speaker: We shall have to look at all these points, I think.

Orders of the Day — PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.17 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before proceeding further, I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her interests, so far as concerns the matter dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to have this statement circulated? We could not follow it properly when it was read, and, seeing that such important issues arise out of it, should not the House have had it circulated in manuscript form?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in explaining the Bill to us.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My point of order is that the Minister has submitted what appears to be a manuscript proposal which the House has known nothing about. We did not have knowledge of a word of this prior to it being read. It was read very quickly and we could not follow it. I submit to you, Sir, that it is reasonable to suggest that we should either have it circulated in manuscript form, or the Minister should read it again so that we can hear it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is mistaken. All the Minister did was to signify in the usual form the Queen's consent to the Second Reading of the Bill. That is all he did. This is the formal way of doing it and there is no necessity for circulating it.

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) wants me to read it again, I shall be only too pleased to do so. What I said was, "I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her


Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her interests, so far as concerns the matter dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament."

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Watkinson: It is with much pleasure that I move the Second Reading of this important Bill. It concerns a very large scheme of work which has waited for a great many years. The purpose of the Bill is best and most clearly set out in Clause 1. I think that most hon. Members would agree that Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane and Marble Arch are at the very heart of the London traffic problem, and the House may be interested to know that this will be the biggest single road improvement in Central London since the construction of Kingsway, in 1905.
I hope that hon. Members will have taken the opportunity to look at the model which has been exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall, because this is a matter which is more easily followed if one has a detailed knowledge of the layout of Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. I do not propose to go through the physical details of the scheme at any great length; they are clearly listed in Clause 1.
These works should be seen against the background of a great deal of other work which is going on in London and all over the country. I will mention just one or two schemes which are, to some extent, linked with this one. There are, for example, the Notting Hill Gate widening and the Strand widening. There are, however, a great number of these schemes going on all over London. It is my view and the view of those who advise me that, if we can get these done within a reasonable time, they will make a major contribution to the solution of London's traffic problem.
One manifestation of the British pastime, which I think is a dangerous one, of self-depreciation is the way in which so many people seem to think that nothing that we do in London can ever be as good as what is done in New York, or Paris, or some other capital city. It might do something to correct this somewhat unrealistic attitude if I say that at this moment over £10 million worth of road works is committed in London and the

Bill will add another £4½ million of work to that total if the House approves it.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is presiding over a joint Committee of my Department, the London County Council and the Road Research Laboratory which is drawing up a long-term programme of new roads and road improvements for the capital in the light of the most recent traffic information. Therefore, I think that the Bill fits in with the general plan of works and development in London, which, I believe, compares more than favourably with what any other country in the world is doing.
The House might be interested if I quoted a sentence or two which hon. Members might think were uttered by a British Minister of Transport:
We have waited too long, in the city and in the suburbs, and the result is that today, instead of being able to find openings and paths we can follow with comparative ease, we have to take down great big occupied residential, office, and other buildings and move thousands of people who don't want to be disturbed, who don't fully understand what we are driving at and who listen to all kinds of critics. We have to resist the pressures of groups and individuals who propose impractical alternate routes and by-passes. They want us to stay away from them even if in the end they will be enormously benefited.
Those words are not mine. They are the words of Mr. Robert Moses, who, as many hon. Members know, has done so much for traffic engineering in New York. They show that all over the world major capital cities are faced with this problem.
I think that it is time in this country not for more argument, but for more action. What we need is better roads now. We really must press forward and get some of the large schemes completed if we are to achieve any solution to the London problem of traffic congestion. I hope that the Bill, as I have explained it, will be seen in its proper context of making a major contribution to the solution of the traffic problem against the background of many other large schemes which are also going on.
Before I come to the details of the Bill, I notice that some hon. Members have tabled a Motion by which they seek to defer the passage of the Bill. They will no doubt explain their reasons for so doing, but I should like to remind the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about something in which I know he has


taken a personal interest. In March this year I authorised stage one of the Stretford—Eccles by-pass, including the Barton High Level Bridge. The work on this scheme has begun, and it will cost about £3½ million.
I hope that the hon. Member will not claim that London is getting more than its fair share, because that is not true. London must have its share, too, of the very large sums of money that are being spent throughout the country.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, after having had to wait fifty years for it.

Mr. Watkinson: The residents of London may say that they have had to wait a long time for some solution of their traffic problems. London must have its fair share of the road works which are going on in the country. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would argue that London should not have its fair share.
I now come to the details. This is really a Bill not about a great political principle, but about practical details of civil engineering work. The details are best set out in paragraph 2 of the Explantory Memorandum accompanying the Bill. The Bill seeks to authorise the London County Council, as the improvement authority, to do three things. The first is to remodel the East Carriage Drive inside Hyde Park so as to form with Park Lane a twin carriageway road which will lie outside the boundary of the park, although we hope, as I shall explain, to preserve most of the trees, grass and amenities.
The second thing is to provide an under-pass between Piccadilly and Knightsbridge. The third is to construct two large roundabout systems at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. Perhaps I should mention—it is an additional advantage for those who like Hyde Park, as I do—that there will also be constructed a number of subways which will enable those going into and out of the park to do so Without having to worry about waiting for the traffic.
The scheme is simple in conception. It means that the East Carriage Drive, in general, will really become one of the twin carriageways. Each carriageway will be 40 ft. wide. In other words, each one will carry four lanes of traffic. That

should give much greater freedom of movement from north to south. To enable the traffic on the north to south route to go smoothly into Hyde Park Corner, a new road, called Apsley Carriageway, will have to be driven through Nos. 145–148, Piccadilly. Apsley Carriageway will be 85 ft. in width, which will be more than sufficient for four lanes of traffic in each direction. There is also the enlargement of the roundabouts at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
As the House knows, this scheme has been under discussion for very many years. The working group was set up in 1955 by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. It brought forward the present scheme as basically the one it considered most suitable and the one making the largest contribution to the solution of the traffic problem.
If hon. Members doubt the necessity for the Bill, they might bear in mind that the traffic passing through Hyde Park Corner, as shown by the Metropolitan Police census of 1956, is about 91,000 vehicles in a 12-hour day. That makes it the busiest junction in the whole country. Everyone knows that at peak hours it is overloaded, as is also the length of Park Lane and Marble Arch. Marble Arch carries 65,000 vehicles in the same period, which makes it the third busiest junction in London.
What is of interest is that I have had the commercial vehicle aspect of traffic at Hyde Park Corner looked into. I am told that the number of commercial vehicles passing through Hyde Park Corner is next only in London to the number using the Vauxhall Cross and the Blackfriars Bridge approach. There is considerable commercial advantage in this work as well as the benefits which it will provide for bus travellers, private motorists, and coaches.
Perhaps I may deal with the underpass. A great deal has been said about this project. The working group, which included all the interests involved and the Road Research Laboratory, did not consider that an under-pass between Knightsbridge and Piccadilly was an essential feature of this scheme. They considered, at the time they reported, that the new surface layout at Hyde Park Corner would provide a substantial reserve capacity of about 30 per cent.


That was their view. Since then, however, the Ministry has had further traffic counts taken and we have been very careful to try to see that we have not underinsured ourselves for the future.
We particularly looked at the state of affairs which occurs in the mornings and evenings of each working day due to the great tidal surge of traffic in and out of London at this time. It was as a result of that study that we came to the conclusion that an under-pass, while perhaps still not strictly justified on present figures, would be a useful bonus to add to the scheme. It would be an insurance for the future and it would help to carry the traffic at the peak hours when, as many hon. Members know, it is difficult to get through Hyde Park Corner or Marble Arch.
I therefore decided, in agreement with the London County Council, that a two-lane under-pass should be added to the scheme, although this adds to the total cost by over £1½million. There are those, no doubt, seeking even greater perfection, who will say that still further expenditure should be incurred to provide a four-lane under-pass. Incidentally, this would cost at least another £750,000 and, in my view and those of my advisers, this sum is certainly not justified at the present time. Let me explain why.
I have had an up-to-date study done of traffic capacity and the House will, I think, like to know that the present layout of the new surface roundabout, together with the two-lane under-pass, will provide a reserve capacity of not less than 40 per cent., which we calculate to be sufficient for the traffic increase for at least ten to fifteen years.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is that at the peak?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, that is taking the worst conditions. While it is not possible to be precise—

Mr. J. A. Leavey: Does that mean that there is a 40 per cent. margin when traffic is at its very worst today and just creeping along? What standard is used?

Mr. Watkinson: If my hon. Friend will allow me I will explain.
As I have said, first, the expert committee, which studied this for a long time, decided that the greatly enlarged roundabout at Hyde Park Corner, the model of which, no doubt, my hon. Friend has studied in the Upper Waiting Hall—and he will have noticed that it is an enormously enlarged and quite different and more scientific roundabout—gives a 30 per cent. reserve of traffic capacity. That is a 30 per cent. reserve over the worst conditions for which calculations have been made. But as the committee's calculations were, I think, based on the survey of 1954, it was obviously right that we should look at all the figures again. That we have done and that was why I decided, with the L.C.C., to provide an under-pass. The under-pass, plus the roundabout as proposed, gives a reserve capacity, allowing for the worst conditions in present traffic, of no less than 40 per cent. As I have said, on the most conservative calculations, that should be enough to cater for the increase in traffic over the next ten to fifteen years.
I was going on to say that we could take the view that it would provide a reserve capacity indefinitely, because the amount of traffic approaching Hyde Park Corner is obviously limited by the width of Knightsbridge and Piccadilly, and there is a physical limit to the traffic which those two highways can carry. So I could have made a perfectly sound technical case for saying that this underpass should not be built at all. But because experience has led me and my advisers to believe that it is always well rather to over-insure than under-insure in traffic problems, we have decided to build this two-lane under-pass.
As I have said, that provides a 40 per cent. reserve of capacity which will be ample for ten to fifteen years and probably indefinitely.

Mr. David Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the rumour which I have heard that it is not intended that London Transport buses operating from Piccadilly to Knightsbridge and vice versa should traverse the under-pass, and that they will go round the roundabout? Does that mean that the under-pass will not be high enough for really high and large commercial vehicles? If so, I should have thought that the chaos would be worse.

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. All sorts of rumours circulate. The under-pass will take heavy commercial vehicles and buses, but it is not London Transport's wish to put buses through the under-pass at present, because it raises difficulties in trans-shipping the passengers. It is London Transport's decision and not mine. Of course, the under-pass is fitted for the heaviest vehicles. The London County Council will do certain work such as sewer diversions and building works which will make the addition of the other two lanes at some future date a relatively easy matter.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This is one of the most important points of this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said that a 40 per cent. reserve capacity would cover the situation for the next ten or fifteen years. Is he really saying that in ten or fifteen years' time the position may once again be just as bad as it is today?

Mr. Watkinson: No. I am saying that on any count at all, taking the most pessimistic and alarmist view of the situation, the design of the surface roundabout plus the under-pass will be an immense improvement and will cater in a speedy way for all the traffic and avoid blockages and holdups for at least ten to fifteen years. I could take a more optimistic view and say that it could be almost indefinite because of the limited amount of traffic that will be able to pass through Piccadilly or Knightsbridge owing to the physical limitations of those two highways.
The rate of increase in traffic would seem to show that those statements are all on the conservative side. In other words, we are definitely over-insuring considerably by putting in the under-pass and my reason for doing it is that, apart from over-insuring, which I think is right, it will be of assistance in giving people a quick under-route from Piccadilly to Knightsbridge and from Knightsbridge to Piccadilly.
I have been into this quite carefully and I cannot justify spending more money than I have done, allowing for the fact I have given to the House that we shall have 40 per cent. reserve capacity. The scheme is competing with schemes all over the country, as no doubt the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent,

South and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will soon be saying.

Dr. Barnett Stross: This is a most interesting point. If it be the case that an extra £750,000 would be required to make an under-pass with four lanes and if at the same time, in case it were ever needed, a further over-insurance were offered by the London County Council which is putting in sewers and other services, has the Minister anything that he can tell us as to what would be the cost if the improvements had to be made at some later date, namely, in ten or fifteen years?

Mr. Watkinson: It is difficult to be specific, but I can tell the House that the cost of £1½ million in itself allows a great deal of general preparatory work for another under-pass. I understand that the main sewer is to be diverted and certain works done under the hospital which are appropriate to another under-pass. I am advised therefore that the cost of an extra two lanes at some future date should not be very much more on the values of today, whatever they may be then, than the figures I have given to the House today—and that is £750,000.
I should warn the House—and I think that hon. Members who have studied the model will realise this—that if we have a four-lane underpass it will take a great deal more planning. We should have to demolish far more houses, and it would involve awkward kinds of shapes of carriageway. This is all better seen on the model than from my effort to describe it in the House. If hon. Members will bear my words in mind and later study the map or the model I think that they will find—and the L.C.C. and the Road Research Laboratory agree with this—that we have achieved the best solution which is one which I am quite confident will cater for the traffic for a very long period.
Briefly to deal with the rest of the Bill, I think that I should just explain that by far the greater part of the land required for the various works belongs to the Crown, and this Crown land is being dealt with in two ways. The land which is not part of Hyde Park or Green Park will he acquired by the L.C.C., but the ownership of the land which is part of either of those


parks will not pass. In other words, Clause 6 deals with the treatment of Crown land outside the parks and gives authority for the L.C.C. to purchase such land, but the freehold of the parklands, so to speak—Green Park and Hyde Park—which are part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, will not pass from the Crown. Therefore, the Bill gives the L.C.C. the power to enter upon the land and do the necessary works thereon. That is the purpose of Clauses 1 and 3. It is perhaps, a unique point, but I thought that I should mention it in introducing the Bill.
There is another point I should like to make a little more strongly, because there are, I know, those who are worried about the amenities of Hyde Park—and so am I. I am quite certain that our new arrangement of subways—which, incidentally will be equipped, not with steps but with ramps so that people with prams, bicycles and so on can wheel them up and down—will give much better access to the park, and avoid that unpleasant trip over a crowded road which so many people now face before they can get into the park at all. I will not go into details as to where those subways will be placed—they are to be seen on the model—but there are a very large number of them.
No powers are taken in the Bill to control pedestrians, but the L.C.C. will, of course, fence off certain reservations so that access will be gained through the subways and not, we hope, over the road.
Turning to the general amenities, I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, who has been most helpful in all this, and who himself hopes, I think, that his new Hyde Park will be rather more private and cut off from traffic, and of rather greater amenity than the present one. The sum of £450,000 is earmarked for the layout of street islands, the central reservations and so on. That is a considerable sum, and I am sure that the London County Council will spend it wisely. The L.C.C. is taking the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. I have made it plain, I think, that the Road Research Laboratory and all the other interests concerned strongly support the Bill.
I should also report the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission, because the

Commission, naturally, has been consulted both by my Ministry and by the L.C.C. I am authorised to say that its view is this. It is opposed to encroachment on the Royal Parks as a whole, but it has made some helpful suggestions on the details of what has now been proposed. These suggestions concern the treatment of the islands at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch, the effect on the park of the inclusion of the East Carriage Drive, and the facilities available for car parking when the scheme is completed. The Minister of Works, the L.C.C. and myself are giving careful consideration to these suggestions and we shall, of course, have occasion to consult the Commission again when we come to work out the details. The Commission's advice has been most helpful, and we shall hope to take advantage of it.
In case any hon. Member is not clear, I will deal with one point about the area. The total area affected by the Bill is 21 acres but, of that, 11 acres are at present, and will remain, in the carriageway. A further six acres of grass and trees will he preserved, and the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission is that that acreage should be left in as natural and informal a state as possible. Therefore, the actual loss of land will be only four acres.
As the other provisions of the Bill are mostly self-explanatory, I do not think I need trouble the House with them. They are all permissive, and allow the London County Council and others concerned to get on with this very necessary job. If any hon. Member wants to ask questions about them, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be only too pleased to answer.
In commending the Bill to the House, I would only say that it is really an essential part of what, I believe, is at least a systematic series of attacks on the growing congestion of traffic in inner London; a congestion which, we all know, would, if allowed to proceed unchecked, in the end throttle our capital city's commercial and industrial life. Road building and road improvements are, of course, only part of the cure. In this debate it would be out of order to mention the other measures which I hope to carry out in conjunction with the L.C.C. in the next few years.
But this is an essential part of the solution, and if we do not press on and do these works now I believe that we will


miss a very great chance of improving, not only the traffic conditions but the amenity conditions and layout of this vital and most beautiful part of London. In this, I have the full support of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, the Road Research Laboratory, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and, I think, all the interests involved. I would therefore, make a plea to the House to pass the Bill quickly through all its stages, so that I may advise the London County Council to spend a very large sum of money.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him, while congratulating him warmly on this imaginative Bill, to clear up one point? Are Park Lane and East Carriage Drive to be widened? Because, if not, the total volume of traffic will remain much the same; and it will be inhibited, as at present, by long lines of cars parked on each side.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend did not get the point when I said that the new width of the carriageways would be 40 ft., which is quite adequate for four lines of traffic in each direction.

Captain Pilkington: That means that they will be wider than they are now?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Before my right hon. Friend sits down—and for the comfort of the House, in that I shall at this stage ask a couple of questions and, therefore, make it unnecessary for me to try to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker—may I ask him or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me when it is expected that the scheme will be started and when it will be finished? My right hon. Friend will remember that he has been bombarded with requests from hon. Members to make the East Carriage Drive of Hyde Park subject to one-way traffic, and that these requests he has always turned down because, quite rightly, he has pointed out that this is impossible as long as the gate at Hyde Park Corner is not by-passed. Can he tell us that the first steps will be taken to make the one-way system possible first?

Mr. Watkinson: I will leave some of the answers to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but we all realise that the actual carrying out of this work might temporarily make traffic worse in that area. It is my express wish to the L.C.C. which it says it will meet—in full consultation with my Ministry—that the work shall be done in such a way as to cause the least possible congestion. Whether or not my hon. Friend's suggestion is right, I do not know; but to cause the least congestion will be a major objective. The work will start as soon as possible after the House, if it should so decide, passes the Bill.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The House will be grateful to the Minister for having explained the contents of the Bill in such detail. In fact, it is pleasant to be able to speak from this Dispatch Box on a transport matter which is not politically controversial. I should like, therefore, to make it clear at the outset that we on this side, for the most part, recognise the need for this major improvement at Hyde Park Corner and recognise it as a matter of considerable urgency.
The carrying out of these improvements has been delayed far too long. This scheme was included as far back as 1951—not 1955, which was the scheme to which the Minister referred. We certainly agree in principle with the scheme. All of us who motor round Hyde Park Corner on our way to the House suffer considerably at peak periods. In fact, I believe that Hyde Park Corner is the motorists' worst nightmare in the whole of London. Sometimes one is tempted just to hold the wheel tight, close one's eyes and hope for the best. To my hon. Friends on this side of the House who have some doubts whether the priority should be given to the Bill which the Minister has decided to give it, I say that it is essential that as much road improvement should be carried through as is economically feasible.
There must be very considerable difficulty in determining the priorities. London has a claim upon those priorities, because it is not only the capital of the United Kingdom, but equally, in a sense, it is the capital of the Commonwealth. Millions of visitors come to London from other parts of the United Kingdom and from overseas. It is highly desirable that


the traffic in the city should flow freely, not only for business purposes, but for pleasure as well.
Having said that, I think it is necessary to examine carefully the proposed plan for the major improvement with a view to ensuring three things. First, whether the best possible layout has been decided upon. Secondly, whether full value will be obtained for the £4½ million that it is to cost; that is to say, whether equal relief to traffic congestion and improvement in the flow of traffic could be obtained for less outlay or whether greater relief and better flow of traffic could be obtained for the same expenditure if there were a different plan in operation. Thirdly, whether additional expenditure in making additional underpasses or larger under-passes could bring proportionately better results; that is to say, whether in some detail we may not be spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. There is a fourth consideration to which the Minister referred, namely, amenities, which I will leave to my hon. Friends who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
First, let us consider the under-pass. The Minister explained that this will carry only one lane of traffic each way and that it is to £1½cost million. I was relieved to hear that it will carry commercial traffic and will be deep enough to take double-decker buses. I regret that London Transport so far has decided not to make use of the under-pass. I hope the time will come when it will change its point of view. The traffic at Hyde Park consists of a very large volume of London Transport vehicles. If London Transport does not make use of the under-pass, clearly the relief to congestion will be nowhere near as great as it might be. Its objection, I understand, relates to the picking up and setting down of passengers at the stops at Hyde Park Corner. It is true that there are about 18 different services which converge there, and there is a very considerable inter-change. I should have thought that that difficulty could be overcome by moving the stops or following the example of the old Kingsway Tunnel, which had stations for the boarding of trams down below.

Sir Charles Taylor: Might we have this point clear? Has

London Transport said that it will not use this under-pass for all its vehicles, or has it said only that it will not use it for those where there are already traffic stops or bus pick-up points? Has it said that it will not use it at all?

Mr. Ernest Davies: No doubt when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will give a more authoritative answer than I can, but in The Times, when the later scheme was put forward and the introduction of the Bill was announced, it was reported that a London Transport official said:
…buses would not use the under-pass. It would take buses away from the stops in the Hyde Park Corner area and inconvenience passengers who interchange between the 18 services using the junction.
That is the only information I have, and I thought the Minister confirmed the fact that it was not the intention of London Transport to send its buses by way of the under-pass.

Sir C. Taylor: I was only asking for information.

Mr. Davies: I understand. I was somewhat confused by the Minister's figures about the under-pass, because he stated that the original scheme, which did not include it, would leave a 30 per cent. excess capacity at the Hyde Park Corner end; but he said that with the underpass it would leave a 40 per cent. excess capacity. That means that the expenditure of £1½ million on the under-pass will increase the surplus capacity by the difference between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent.

Mr. Watkinson: There were two different base dates. That is the difficulty of statistics. The 30 per cent. figure was based on the 1954 census. The 40 per cent. figure is based on the up-to-date count. The two figures are not comparable.

Mr. Davies: That explains it. However, I did not share the Minister's optimism that the surplus capacity would be adequate. The traffic is increasing at the rate of 7 per cent. a year, which means that within three to four years this surplus capacity will be taken up and we shall be in the same position as we are today.
In the circular which he sent to local authorities a short while ago, the Minister


suggested that they should plan for a traffic increase of 75 per cent. That was the Minister's view. Surely, he is not following the advice that he himself gave to local authorities. He is providing an increase in this very busy area in a traffic congested city of up to only 40 per cent. rather than up to the 75 per cent. for which he advised local authorities to provide. For my own part, I am convinced that within a very few years, despite improvement and the construction of the under-pass, we shall be in little better position than we are today. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to consider increasing the under-pass from two lanes to four in view of the fact that it would cost only £750,000 more. I understand that the L.C.C. suggested there should be a four-lane under-pass. Is it not very shortsighted to cut down expenditure on the scheme to £4½ million by cutting £750,000 and thereby reducing the size of the under-pass from four to two lanes? Would it not have been far more reasonable and far wiser to look to the future and to provide for an underpass of four traffic lanes?
Clearly, if in three, four or five years' time it will be necessary to enlarge the under-pass, then the dislocation which will take place will be so great that the chaos will be unbearable. I suggest that we are doing in this case what has been done so often in the past, not only in London, but in other parts of the country. Rather than planning for the future, we are planning simply for the present situation and for the immediate future. We are not planning for the next few years when we know that traffic will increase to a very large extent. It is short-sighted and, in my view, foolish not to carry out the complete structure at this time, but to prefer, as is being done, to put it off until a future date.
After having looked at the roundabout at Hyde Park Corner, on the model and on the plan, I wonder whether the best layout has been decided upon. A new street is to be created, which the Minister called the Apsley Carriageway, and it is to be, as he pointed out, a two-way street. That means that westbound traffic turning from this new street will still have to cut across eastbound traffic proceeding towards Piccadilly Circus. There will still be this complicated weaving of traffic as one lane cuts across the other. Could not the

scheme have been planned differently so that the Park Lane traffic, which is one-way, could have continued down Hamilton Place which could be widened? The new street could then have been a one-way street for northbound traffic which could turn into the East Carriageway as now planned.
I cannot understand why, since it was decided to use Park Lane for one-way traffic, it was decided to use this short new street for two-way traffic. If the new street had been one-way for northbound traffic, corresponding to the East Carriageway, Hamilton Place, which already exists and which is being eliminated as far as traffic is concerned, could be used for one-way southbound traffic. I suggest that some such scheme as that could have eliminated the necessity for different lanes of traffic to intercept. Incidentally, a scheme of that nature might have enabled No. 148 Piccadilly—which is a fine house and which is to be demolished, regrettably in view of the manner in which its interior is furnished—to have been saved.
When we look at the northern end of the scheme up at Marble Arch, I do not understand why an under-pass is not to be constructed there. I should have thought that that was one of the most obvious places in London, where traffic is so busy, to construct an under-pass. Surely, that is a place where it would be practicable to provide an under-pass and where its value would be immediately realised. There is ample space at Marble Arch for an under-pass to be built to take traffic coming from Edgware Road and going in to Park Lane and vice versa. A great deal of traffic passes in those directions.
I suggest that in a few years' time these roundabouts at Marble Arch, with the weaving and crossing of traffic, will be found to be quite inadequate to cope with the increased volume of traffic which is inevitable, and that an under-pass will then be necessary. I regret that when one embarks upon such a major scheme as this at such a great cost, the extra cost of these additional works is not added so that the whole scheme catering for ten or twenty years ahead may be embarked upon at once instead of limiting it to one which will be adequate for only five years at most.
I welcome the provision of subways for pedestrians, which are essential at these busy traffic centres, but I must say that I find it a little difficult to follow them either on the plan or on the model. It seems to me that these subways would involve pedestrians descending and ascending a great deal. That is to say, they will have to descend and ascend to the islands at Hyde Park Corner and then descend again for the latter part of the crossing and then ascend once more. In other words, they will go down and up to the islands and then down and up to the far side. I do not see pedestrians embarking upon such an exercise. Unfortunately, all of us when pedestrians are apt to be rather lazy and we like to take the shortest cut, even if we run risks to our limbs in so doing.
Similarly, I notice that there are to be subways linking both Park Lane and the East Carriageway to the central reservation in Hyde Park which will no longer be in the park itself. I wonder whether this is really necessary. Admittedly, one hopes that this central reservation will, be an amenity; one hopes that it will be maintained at the high standard at which it is maintained now, as part of the park, but does the Minister think that pedestrians or people in the park will descend subways in order to get into this central reservation which will be situated between two fast-flowing lanes of traffic, one in Park Lane and the other in the East carriageway, and that people will desire to stay in the reservation between these two streams of roaring traffic? I should have thought it would have been better to create through-subways at the Marble Arch end and the Hyde Park end in order to avoid the necessity to go to the central islands, rather than create additional subways to this central reservation.
Those are the only qualifications that I have to make about the scheme. In Parliamentary Questions to the Minister I have asked whether adequate reference was made to those most experienced and expert in traffic engineering before the scheme was decided upon. Today the right hon. Gentleman explained to us the bodies which had approved it and the care which had been taken in finalising the plans. But one still has some reservations on whether the final plans have not been too rushed, perhaps inevitably, and

whether or not it is too late still to re-examine not the principles but some of the details in order to make absolutely certain that the greatest benefit will be derived from this scheme particularly in regard to traffic flows at the roundabouts.
While this scheme for the improvement of Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch and the Park Lane area is to be welcomed, and indeed is necessary, as are the removals of those other bottlenecks to which the Minister referred, particularly at Notting Hill Gate, the Strand and the Elephant and Castle, they do not in themselves provide the solution to London's traffic problem. London is a built-up area and there is a limit both to the physical improvements which can be made and to the finance that can be provided. Traffic has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase, and it must be catered for in some way. One cannot hold back this stream of traffic, as it were. It is a baffling problem because the position is never static. One might almost say that the traffic never stands still—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—although it may well do so if we proceed at the present pace. What I mean is that the traffic always out-paces the facilities which are provided.
That means that those responsible for dealing with traffic problems in great cities like London face a dilemma in that the more facilities they provide the greater becomes the volume of traffic. That has been the experience in Brussels, and I expect that some speakers will refer to the great reconstruction work which has been done to provide for the increased traffic in the centre and outskirts of Brussels.
In passing, I would remind the Minister who said we were now spending £10 million on traffic improvements in London, plus the £4½ million which is to be spent on this proposal, and that we were leading the great capitals in the amount being spent for this purpose, that the cost of the major improvements now under way in Brussels—a far smaller city with a much smaller population—is £14 million.
Appalling though London traffic congestion is, I believe that it is certain to become worse and, unless other measures than these major improvements are taken, we shall not be able to relieve the congestion sufficiently to enable traffic to


continue to flow freely. I know that it is difficult to imagine traffic getting worse, but we are rapidly approaching the day, it seems to me, when it will take longer to travel on the surface from the West End to the City of London than it does for a Sputnik to encircle the earth in outer space.
What can be done at the present time in addition to these essential major schemes? One of the chief essentials is to take traffic underground, for which the construction of new tubes must be authorised. This should be done in addition to taking traffic through underpasses or overground by the new system of overhead roads on prestressed concrete viaducts. Unless the Victoria Line is constructed in London within the next few years, traffic in the area we are considering this afternoon will again become intolerable. That line would relieve the very area with which we are concerned. We all have reason to be thankful for the Underground which was started fifty years ago; it is difficult to imagine how bad London's problem would be without it. Every Londoner as he travels to and from his daily work should render a prayer of thanksgiving to Lord Ashfield for his enterprise and foresight in laying the foundation of what has become the most extensive and efficient system of metropolitan transport in the world.
I suggest that the Minister should seriously consider ways and means of financing the building of the Victoria Line. It is quite clear that it cannot be built by the British Transport Commission. The Commission has not the funds and would not be able to make the line pay if it had to finance it at the high rate of interest now prevailing. The line can be built only if it is treated as this Park Lane improvement scheme is being treated, that is, as a major road work, the funds being found by the Government. Once the line is built, it should then be handed over to London Transport for operation, on lease perhaps, but at least constructed initially by the Government as a contribution towards the relief of traffic congestion in London.
No one wishes to sacrifice the character of London by ruthless vandalism in an effort to make traffic flow freely. There is, as I have said, a limit to the reconstruction we can do in London if we are to preserve London's character. We

shall, therefore, have to resort to other, limited, means of relieving traffic congestion, apart from these major schemes. The Bill provides a major contribution and should be supported, subject to some qualifications on detail to which I have referred.
I believe that the London County Council is to be congratulated on preparing the scheme, on its appreciation of the urgency of the matter, and on the persistence with which it has pushed it forward and urged it upon the Government. The Minister also is to be commended for having realised the necessity for the scheme, and, the more so, for having obtained the authority of the Treasury to go ahead with it. The need now is to press on as speedily as possible and to see the improvement realised.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on presenting the Bill to the House. The scheme undoubtedly displays very great imagination. I will go so far as to say that this is almost the first occasion when the Ministry of Transport has revealed that it has, at last, realised that there is a growing weight of evidence that the motor car is here to stay.
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has been saying. In the Bill, we are dealing with one specific problem, but there is a multiplicity of problems in the surrounding area which themselves contribute towards the aggravation of the situation we are here considering. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that steps are in train to provide relief in other places where it is very much needed.
For example, the exit and entrance to Hyde Park, in Bayswater Road, is one of the most serious bottlenecks in London. Anybody who has had to struggle through there in the evening during the rush hour will know exactly what I mean. There is the problem also at the exit of the Mall via Marlborough House into Pall Mall, where the traffic authorities have made matters even worse within the last few months by putting in the centre of the roadway a temporary bollard which restricts traffic to a single line where previously there was one road with a double line.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East made a point which we sometimes tend to overlook. We have in London what one might call a serious tradition problem. There are many old buildings in London which we could destroy only at the cost of very great public outcry. For example, in fifteen or twenty years' time—personally, I should like to see it done now, though perhaps I am a heretic—Tower Bridge may well have to be done away with. As a means of transport over the river, nothing could be more outdated for a city such as London.
For more than three years I have asked questions of my right hon. Friend about traffic congestion in that area, and every time I have put down a Question I have received the reply that the authorities are considering it. What is the period of gestation required before the authorities produce an idea about these serious problems? The movement of transport in London across the river is a very serious matter, to which insufficient attention has been paid in the past.
The Bill will give some assistance, though it does not go all the way, in assisting the exit of traffic out of Constitution Hill into Hyde Park Corner. There again, at half-past five and six o'clock in the evening, a great mass of traffic is suddenly forced into a single line at the exit of Constitution Hill and, before very many minutes pass, there is complete congestion throughout the length of Constitution Hill which sometimes takes half to three-quarters of an hour to disperse.
The loss of money sustained by the country as a result of traffic jams at peak hours is incalculable. We really cannot afford this continual drain on our national resources, and we must consider far more imaginative schemes than the one now before us.
Up and down the country, and particularly in London, roundabouts are constructed which are a disgrace to the nation. In many cases, up to eight lines of traffic converge on to a roundabout round which there is only one carriage width and traffic is expected to flow freely in conditions like that. The fact is that the engineers in the Ministry of Transport themselves contribute largely to our traffic problems. We must face

the fact that we have to make the traffic flow and that we must build roundabouts round which it can flow.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
In making this proposal, on behalf, also, of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), I associate myself without any equivocation with those who have already paid tribute to the Minister. Although he and I differ fundamentally politically, I believe in giving credit where it is due. The Minister is conscientious and anxious, within the limits of his own political outlook and the limitations set by the Cabinet, to do whatever he can to improve the transport and the roads. If Ministers of my party, when they have similar power, will do the same, nobody will be better pleased than I.
I pay a tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he introduced the Bill. He did not make a speech of unnecessary length. He was precise, he dealt with the issues at stake and he was very clear. It was a treat to sit here and to hear so few minutes taken up by the introduction of a Bill of this importance.
I understood the Minister to say that he wanted fair shares in the expenditure on the roads. That is all we are asking for. If we can have fair shares, nobody will be more pleased than my hon. Friends and myself. We speak this afternoon not only on our own behalf. If anyone likes to test what we are saying, we invite him to test it in any part of the country, and particularly north of Birmingham, except for the extreme south of England.
Let me make our position quite clear so that middle-class people in particular and those in the areas with which I am concerned should have no misunderstanding about our attitude. We take second place to no one in appreciating and admiring the cultural contribution made by our fellow countrymen throughout the ages to the rest of the world. We take second place to no one in admiring and appreciating the Royal Parks, with their


beauty and their vegetation. We take second place to no one in admiring these roads, which are already relatively wide compared with the streets and roads where we were born and where we live. Upon that, we shall have some observations to make later.
The park that we are talking about is an object lesson for the whole of the country. When taking exercise, I spend hours walking through the park. I did so especially in pre-war times with my hon. Friends with whom I had the privilege of serving on this side of the House. I should not be worthy of them if I did not take the line that I am taking today. They were men of strength and character, who had come through the hard way, who built up the Labour Party, who were real Labour men, and it would have been wrong of me not to speak in this way this afternoon. If they were still here, these benches would have been packed with indignant men representing the areas where they spent their lives.
In the park, we have watched people, among them some of the most humble, admiring the plants and the flowers. One never saw anybody touch the flowers, the shrubs and the trees. That illustrates the great lesson that the average person responds to the environment in which he finds himself. The beauty is such that apart from a few irresponsible young people, for whom we must make allowances—some of them may be suffering from the aftermath of a world war, so do not let us be too hard on them—little damage worth talking about is done to the beauty of the park.
I understood the Minister to say that this scheme was the biggest road improvement to be made in London since 1905. Then he said that a great deal of other work is going on in London and will link up with it. I speak from memory, but if I remember aright, this project will amount to £4½ million, to which can be added £10 million; and there is a great deal of other work going on in London which links up with it. That means, therefore, an outlay of at least £14 million at present in London.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not complain of this, but I want to get the facts on record—is meeting a number of committees and experts and as a result of this work, considerable further improvements may be

made. It is against that background that we now consider the situation in relation to the rest of the country.
I admit that some people can make a case, although I do not altogether accept it—but I do not have time to go fully into it now—that the situation at Marble Arch should be treated as one of extreme urgency. The same may apply to Hyde Park Corner. [HON. MEMBERS: "More so."] My hon. Friends who are motorists, and in whom I have great confidence, say "More so." I accept what they say. I have been brought up to study and to measure plans—I could not have got my living otherwise—and I calculate that in comparison with what they say is a matter of extreme urgency, the cost will be seven times greater than to deal with the Marble Arch problem and it is eight times greater than the Hyde Park Corner problem.
In addition, it is proposed to have six shelters within a few yards of Marble Arch, but not one shelter from Green Street Gate to Piccadilly. We could remind our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who spoke about the subway, that it is no strange coincidence that it is midway between the Dorchester and the Grosvenor. Park Lane is already 50 ft. wide. At Marble Arch, there is a width of approximately 200 ft. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary why areas of that dimension should have priority over the rest of the country. The Minister said that he believed in fair shares and we accept that. If he replies upon that basis, he will find no objection from this side when the Bill is put to the vote.
Let me give credit where it is due and say how much we appreciate the announcement made by the Minister at the beginning of the debate. The reason why I asked for it to be repeated was that I did not understand it, and I do not wish to speak on anything which I do not understand. When the Minister repeated it, I was able to understand it and I want to express our great appreciation of the generous gift by the Sovereign in placing this land at our disposal for the proposal that is now being considered.
We contrast that with the attitude of landowners in many other places, people who are holding up urgently required improvements in industrial areas. It is


even necessary to take legal proceedings, some of which have lasted for months and some even for years. Sometimes landlords demand an unreasonable amount of compensation. Contrast that experience in some of the industrial areas and this experience now, in London.
I would ask why the plans of the proposed improvements have not been placed in the Vote Office. It is true that there is an excellent model upstairs and a plan standing on easels by it—and I have been examining them, and I give the Government the credit due to them for having provided us with those—but I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a hybrid Bill, partly the responsibility of the Government and partly the responsibility of the London County Council, and that what is done when there are Private Bills ought to have been done with this Bill, for which there is duality of responsibility. Surely it is only reasonable to ask that, because this Bill is of great interest to hon. Members.
Plans should have been placed in the Vote Office so that we could all have studied them at our leisure, the better to comprehend the proposals. "Oh," some people have said to me, "but the plans have been issued." Yes, they have been issued to the Press. They have been issued to certain people in London. It is Members of Parliament who ought to have had access to them.
The purpose of the Bill, as stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, is
to enable the London County Council to carry out the road improvements…which are designed to relieve traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch and substantially to improve the capacity of Park Lane…
I want to underline those last few words with as thick a pencil as I can find:
substantially to improve the capacity of Park Lane.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us upon what basis this has been given priority, the substantial improvement of the capacity of Park Lane? We contrast the capacity of Park Lane with the capacity of roads in every industrial area of this country, and we know the needs of every industrial area.
The works to be done in this area of London include the introduction of large roundabout systems. In the area that I have the honour to represent here, there is a main road linking London and Manchester. It caters for the whole of the Birmingham traffic, and for the Manchester traffic, and all that that means. I have here a map of that road. A local authority can provide us with maps even if we cannot be provided here with a map by the Government.
For years I have pleaded for improvements to that road. The work has been continually put off. On one side of it are a number of housing schemes, and the children living in those houses have to cross that main road to get to school. We have asked that a subway be built under the road. We were told, "No, we could not afford it." We have asked for various improvements to be made on the road, and that traffic should be slowed down. We have been told, "No, it could not be done."
I am not prepared, as a Member of this House, to see this large number of subways built in this area of London to serve relatively rich people who stay at the Dorchester and Grosvenor House while our little children and their mothers have to run the risk of crossing that main road in my own area because no subways are built there, or while the children and their mothers in other industrial areas are exposed to similar risks on similar roads.
I have living very close to me two of the finest young children it is possible for anyone to have, and we think the world of them; but it is not desired that they should be privileged above the children of anybody else. If what nearly happened in my case ten years ago were to happen to them on the road, I do not know that we should have the spirit to live any longer.
Anyone who knows anything about working-class people knows that for them their children come before anything else in life. The fathers go out to work. In the area where I live most of them go between six and seven o'clock in the morning and they do not return until six or seven o'clock at night. If one of those fathers, on returning at night from work, finds that something has gone wrong with his child, then before he has his dinner he will run out to the chemist's to seek what remedy he can for the child. There


is nothing a father can do for his child if the child has been killed on the road, or has lost limbs. The father just lives on, broken-hearted.
It is reasonable to ask for fair shares, for the expenditure on road improvements to be shared fairly. If it is right for all these subways to be built in this area in London for rich men and women, surely it is reasonable to suggest that there should be a fair share of such road improvements for the industrial areas, for the sake of those who are making the greatest contribution to the economic future of Britain. We cannot live only by maintaining exports.
I remember that on a Sunday afternoon in Trent Vale a child going to Sunday school was killed as it was crossing the road. It is experience of that kind which arouses our emotions and gives us the courage to speak out and act as I am endeavouring to do now. Some of us think that we should have organised such a demand as this, instead of leaving it to a few.
The Bill provides for improved lighting and for the installation of lighting equipment in this area of London. Last Saturday night I stood in a bus queue at Long-ton, when it was raining, and on the other side of the road there was not a light: it was black. For me personally it does not matter, but it does matter for the miners going to work in the early morning. It does matter for the pottery workers going to work in the early morning, and coming home in the dark at night.
Therefore, we say that if it is right to install improved lighting in Park Lane, bordered by huge hotels, with those other huge buildings in Curzon Street and thereabouts, and all those lovely flats in which well-placed people live, surely, for the sake of the miners and the pottery workers going to and from work, there ought to be the necessary expenditure to enable us to install modern lighting—in Fenton, Longton, and places of that kind.
I was born in the most densely populated area of Lancashire. It is within a few miles of Manchester. There we have the worst roads in the country. If anyone doubts it, let him go there and see. From Patricroft Bridge to Swinton the road is so narrow there cannot be two lines of traffic. People walking along the footpath have to jump aside for their lives

if a vehicle comes—and there is a canal on one side. Along this road huge oil tankers run to Trafford Park and big lorries travel from all over the country to Salford Docks. Yet we are expected to vote for the spending of £102 million on these parks in London. All we ask is that there should be fair shares for other places in the country.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member has said. We are discussing a Bill to authorise the London County Council to carry out certain works. Has the local authority for Stoke-on-Trent been prevented, by lack of a Bill, from carrying out this work, and will the people of Stoke, Salford and Manchester have these improvements made any sooner if the hon. Member obstructs the passage of this Bill?

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member lives in Manchester and I will tell him about that city in a moment. We are talking about Stoke-on-Trent for the time being.
In 1936, the Staffordshire County Council Bill was presented to the House of Commons. I shall be sparing with my language, because I respect hon. Members who did not agree with me politically, but whom I can recall sitting opposite when we presented that Bill. It has always been the policy that, even when it did not agree with a Bill, the House would give it a Second Reading and send it to a Committee. The Bill might be strangled in Committee, but at least it was given a Second Reading. But not so with that Bill, because we were proposing to take over all the transport organisations in the area and run them as a public service. During the war that transport system was very busy because of the two Royal Ordnance factories in the area, but the House of Commons decided that we could not have the Bill. That answers the hon. Member's question on Stoke-on-Trent. Is that fair?

Mr. Cooper: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) asked the hon. Member a specific question about roadways and he has not answered it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The proposed expenditure under the Bill is £44 million, and the Minister announced a further £10 million this afternoon.

Mr. Watkinson: No. That is purely planned for London roads. The hon. Member complimented me on keeping my speech short. I was anxious to keep it short, so I did not give the details.

Mr. Ellis Smith: But this is national money.

Dr. Stross: As to 75 per cent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We shall all contribute towards the cost of works under the Bill, including the people in Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester. In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary is still working on the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Probed: Mr. Arthur Probed (Aberd are) rose—

Mr. Ellis Smith: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to proceed. We have an unanswerable case and the more of this argument which we can get into the debate the better, provided that Mr. Deputy-Speaker allows it.
As I have just said, the Parliamentary Secretary is also working on the Bill and it may be that there will be further expenditure. The Minister made a statement this afternoon, but we do not know what the total expenditure will be. It may be £10 million or £20 million. We know that, as the Bill stands, it is £4½ million.

Mr. Probert: I am sure that I can assist my hon. Friend when I say that for the whole of Wales we were allowed only £15,000 last year to develop private streets. I know of 100 private streets in my constituency alone which must be developed.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The streets to which the Bill refers are not private streets.

Mr. Probed: I am talking about the financial assistance which local authorities need to develop their areas.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). I appreciate that additional evidence. I hope that it has carried weight in the debate.

Mr. E. Johnson: I am sorry to be persistent, but I ask the hon. Member again whether Stoke-on-Trent has been prohibited from proceeding with improvements to its roads because of the lack of

a Parliamentary Act giving it that authority.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the hon. Member had been listening, he would have noted that I spent some time in dealing with Trent Vale, which is in the centre of Stoke, and with the main road between Birmingham and Manchester and an area where children run the risk every day of losing their lives. Other road improvements are also desired in that area but, owing to the limitation on capital expenditure, they cannot be carried out.
I have concluded my remarks on Stoke, and now I come to Manchester. If there is one local authority in the country which has had a raw deal from Whitehall in the last few years it is the local authority for the area which is partly represented by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). The hon. Member appears to be agreeing with me and I will leave it at that.
On the question of power to carry out subsidiary works, I am sorry to have to differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), for whom I have great respect. London can be relied upon to obtain power to carry out subsidiary works. Does anyone doubt that? If he does, let me provide the House with evidence. During the preparations for the Victory March, following the war, thousands of beautiful trees were planted in various parts of London, including the Royal Parks. The rest of the country paid for the cost of the planting.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: London is the capital city.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but it is a question of degree. Now we are being constantly told that the country is in a serious economic position and that there must be a limit on capital expenditure. All we ask is that there should be fair shares. Is that reasonable?

Mr. Mellish: Yes.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the Coronation, thousands of pounds were spent upon improvements in London. Everybody knows that but yet, superimposed upon all that expenditure, we now have this Bill. Where will it all stop? We


hear a great deal about Wales and Scotland. It is time that we heard more about the north of England, where the work is really done.

Mr. Edward Short: The Tyne Tunnel.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Now it is proposed to widen and improve streets, to introduce new lighting equipment and to provide guard rails in this area in London. We in Stoke-on-Trent have made several applications for the right to provide guard rails. We cannot obtain permission to do it in an area where the streets are relatively narrow when compared with the roads, which are already 50 ft. wide, that are proposed to be improved by means of the provisions of the Bill. Many of the roads in the Stoke-on-Trent area will hardly take two lines of traffic. Yet there is to be priority for this London area, and we in Stoke are compelled to continue to suffer from the lack of these amenities.
My final point on this aspect of the matter, and one upon which I speak with a touch of bitterness, relates to the fact that, relatively speaking, Stoke has the finest housing record in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North has said that Stoke was at the top of the housing league.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: It was before the present Government knocked it about.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It was a treat to hear councillors and other public-spirited people in that area speaking of the housing record with such pride, but now those people are broken-hearted. In accordance with Government policy, they wish to embark upon large-scale slum clearance. They have started on it because there are thousands of people, as good as any of us here, who are living in terrible slums in that area. They want new houses. They have seen the conditions in which other people are living in the new housing estates.
Now we are in the position that, relatively speaking, we are spending little on slum clearance and this expenditure is given priority against the background of the Grosvenor, the Dorchester and all the other huge buildings in the neighbourhood. There is something wrong. The

miners, the pottery workers, the engineers—all those in the main industries contributing to meeting Britain's economic needs—are treated in that way, whereas this area is treated in the way proposed by the Bill.
Further, in every mining area there are mountains of tips and in every steel area there are mountains of slag heaps which have been there for generations. Every summer the local people dare not open their windows because of the dust and fumes. These tips and slag heaps are monuments to the enormous wealth gained in those areas, and they remain untouched while beautiful areas of the kind dealt with in the Bill receive this attention.
Where is the sense of proportion? Where is the sense of justice? The other night my hon. and respected Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), introduced a Prayer whose object was to oppose a Government proposal to economise on children's welfare foods. The only point I have against my hon. Friend is that he ought to have taken it to a Division in order to put our views on record. This Bill will involve the expenditure of fell million by the same people who steal the babies' orange juice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this; it is getting under their skins.

Mr. Cooper: Frankly, it is not getting under my skin; it is making me vomit.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not mind that, because this is how we make progress. The hon. Gentleman does not live in such an area, so he does not realise the position. Has he any children of his own?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, I have.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Then does he realise that they have no fruit juice and orange juice? Does he realise that the more orange juice they have, the more Vitamin C they have, the fewer colds they have? Yet, at the expense of the poor, £800,000 is being saved by the same people who spend £4½ million in this way.
I ask the Minister whether he is now prepared to introduce another Bill having for its object the improvement of industrial towns? It would save life and limb and prevent anxiety. It would make the roads safe, especially for school


children. It would provide bus shelters and lighting. It would mean the planting of trees, shrubs and turf in the industrial areas. Hon. Gentlemen have a lot to say about America. Well, Pittsburg was the blackest city in the world, but within a few years it was made a city of beauty. We are asking for the introduction of a Bill of this character to improve the industrial areas. Plymouth, in the United States, has done this and it is now a city of beauty. Indeed, I doubt whether there is a finer centre in America. What can be done there can be done in other places, provided that we are determined, that we plan, that we have fair shares and that we apply them throughout the country.

5.55 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I beg to second the Amendment.
At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am second to no one in this House in appreciating the great city of London. There is something about London which one does not find anywhere else in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Well said."] As one who comes from the provinces into London, I get the thrill of coming into one of the great capitals of the world.

Mr. H. Morrison: The greatest.

Mrs. Slater: Yes, the greatest. I am always anxious that the history and tradition and the well-being of London shall be improved as far as possible.
Having said that, I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), that we must discuss this Bill in the context of roadworks throughout the country. I differ from my hon. Friend in so far as I drive a car, and before I came to the House of Commons I had to travel by car to almost every part of the country in connection with my work. So I know what it is to drive on some of the defective main roads in Wales and in Scotland, and how difficult it is to get through some of our industrial towns at the peak hour of traffic. I agree, therefore, that it is important to look at he expenditure on this one part of London in the context of our general expenditure on road improvement.
The Minister gave the figure of £4½ million to be spent on this project, plus a proposed further £10 million within the foreseeable future.

Mr. Morrison: Not on this scheme.

Mrs. Slater: No, but on other schemes. I understand that the expenditure under consideration for roadworks generally is about £240 million, so I estimate that £10½ million is in the region of 6 per cent. of the work to be undertaken throughout the country. I consider that to be a reasonable proportion. This leads me to ask whether, if preference continues to be given to the City of London, how far, and for what length of time, some of our other great cities and also the rural areas, particularly along our main trunk roads, are to be retarded in favour of London having the first preference.
Turning to Stoke, in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) there is a main road running from Stoke out to Leek and to the moorland towns of Sheffield. Before the war there was a proposal for a dual carriageway with a cycle track. The project was not too expensive because it was not necessary to buy up a great deal of old property, since there was a crematorium and a school there. It could have been done easily, but the war came and, since the war, the city council has repeatedly put forward proposals for dealing with sections of the road.
Yet the only thing that has been done is that during Coronation Year we got the parks committee to tidy up the grass verge. It now looks as if that proposal will not be implemented for a long time. During the past five years we have been promised repeatedly that work will start on a small part of the road nearest Stoke, but that has been deferred time after time.
In addition, the City of Stoke-on-Trent had a forward-looking plan to remodel the whole of that city which, by the nature of its geography and its industry during the last hundred years, has "growed", rather like Topsy. For instance, the main ring road would take the heavy traffic from the middle of Hanley, out of the main shopping area of the city, and considerably relieve the traffic situation. It would also much improve the position for Stoke-on-Trent generally, but we have about as much hope of putting that work into operation as we have of many more


projects. The people who conceived that plan thought that in the years after the war we should, at any rate, begin to do something about it, but they can almost forget their hope if proposals such as those in the Bill are to have preference over proposals for remodelling and remaking the road system in cities such as Stoke-on-Trent.
Street lighting presents another major problem. There are large sections of the main traffic roads, adjoining large industrial towns, where the street lighting is not good. One can leave the main part of a city which is in reasonably good lighting and then come to large areas which have many black spots and where, apparently, nothing is likely to be done to improve the lighting. One can be in good lighting in the City of Manchester, which I know very well, and then travel for long stretches without any satisfactory road lighting at all.

Mr. H. Morrison: In London, too.

Mrs. Slater: London is considerably better off than most large cities and their adjoining areas in respect of street lighting. One has only to fly over London to see the difference between it and some other stretches of this country.
Moreover, on our main trunk routes, where lorry drivers have the difficult job of driving heavy vehicles by night, we find repeated bottlenecks. Very little has been done to improve them. I know that some improvement has taken place on the main road from London to the North, but goodness only knows that it took many years before that improvement was made.
Every city authority has still a long way to go in making up the streets within the city. Unmade streets and unmade roads are a big problem. If one reads local newspapers one finds complaints not only from people who live on housing estates, but from people who live in ordinary streets which have been unadopted for far too many years. Time and again we find that these people are annoyed because they have to go on living in bad and dangerous streets, often with no street lighting. Because local authorities have so little money approved for the purpose, there is little chance of making up these unadopted streets.
There is a provision in Clause 3 for the planting of
trees, shrubs and other vegetation

and for the carrying out of work
for improving the appearance of a part of any adjoining building exposed by the taking down or alteration by the Council of any building.
May I relate that to the general position in the country? Every city and town is carrying out a slum clearance programme. When houses are taken down they are often left with unsightly gable ends. The sites remain unplanned and undeveloped. My own local authority has many plots of land which have remained virtually rubbish heaps for many years. This year, for the first time, £10,000 has been allocated so that the parks committee may clear up these untidy corners.
In the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, right in the middle of the town, one of these small plots has been tidied up and made into a flower garden. Seats have been placed there, and on any nice day the old people sit there enjoying the pleasure of that small garden. London has its parks, and so has Stoke, but in Stoke they are not as conveniently placed as are many of the parks in London. I should hate to see London's parks disappear, because they represent one of the great joys of the workers in the middle of the city. They slip into the parks to enjoy the fresh air.
Every local authority would like to feel that it had its fair share of such provisions as these permitting the planting of trees and shrubs and the tidying up of places where old buildings have been taken down.

Mr. Frank Allaun: May I point out that Clause 3 goes much further than that and provides for the installation of
seats, ornamental pools, fountains, statues and monuments.
We have nothing like that in Salford or Stoke. It seems a little unfair that the West End of London, which already is far better off in this respect than we are in the dirty cities of the North, should have further improvements while we have none.

Mrs. Slater: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is quite true that Clause 3 makes provision for seats. In Stoke, we have to get generous people to give us seats for these places at £15 a seat in order that we shall not only


be able to tidy these places up but shall be able to make them available for old people who wish to sit there and enjoy the surroundings.
I want to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend. One must look at this expenditure in relation to the Government's attitude towards many other projects which we have been discussing over the past few days. For example, there is the question of expenditure which is being denied for many other urgent projects. There is the question of provisions for the extension of sewerage works. This is a problem which I have very much at heart because I am anxious to see the sewerage facilities at some of our seaside towns improved so that the sea water shall be made reasonably safe.
There are also such questions as those of health, education and the provision for young and old which we have discussed during the last two days. There is the veto on the award of an increased salary to employees of the National Health Service. All these are being denied because of lack of money. At the same time the Government are offering facilities such as those contained in the Bill for an area where much luxury provision is already available. When other major schemes have to be postponed, surely some economy could be made in the provisions included in the Bill.
The Minister has recommended the Bill to us, but I ask him to relate it to the very urgent problems of every large city and industrial area and the road improvements which they need. I ask him to do that to make safety on the road very much more possible than it is a present.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I welcome the Bill and the imaginative approach to the problem of London's traffic. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) took a somewhat dog-in-the-manger attitude. I am fully conscious of the need for an improvement in the traffic conditions of Manchester. There are plans—on paper, at any rate—to make those improvements possible.
I must admit that the complaints from my constituency are that the character of

one of the roads there is such that people drive along it too fast. The complaints are directed to slowing down rather than speeding up the traffic. I cannot see that improvements in Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, or Salford will be in any way expedited if we delay the passage of this Bill for six months. The Amendment seems to me to be quite senseless.
Some allusion has been made to the great work which has been done in Brussels and I admit that that work is very remarkable. Perhaps we have something to learn from it, but the problems in Brussels are very much easier than those in London, because of the layout of Brussels. Progress has been made in Brussels because the authorities have moved forward rather more boldly than we have, but I am glad to see that we are now making up what is perhaps lost time, for which I do not blame my right hon. Friend in the very least. I hope that this scheme, which is a fine scheme, will be the forerunner of many others not only in London, but in Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, and in other great cities.
There is one aspect of the Bill about which I am somewhat dubious and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about it. It is that part of the Bill, to which reference has already been made, which provides for only single-line traffic in the under-pass between Piccadilly and Knightsbridge. My right hon. Friend said that there was a margin of 40 per cent. already allowed for the amount of traffic likely to use it. That may be so and I would not venture to dispute it.
However, it is generally agreed that the volume of road traffic will be doubled by 1964, so it seems that that margin will not be adequate then. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it would cost about £750,000 now to provide for four-lines of traffic instead of two, and he said that the cost of it would not be very much more if the matter was further delayed. I find that very hard to understand, because if the under-pass is to be completed now for only two lines of traffic, although some of the preliminary work for the two extra lines may have been done, it would appear that it will be to root up what has been done already and start all over again when the time comes to start the actual work on the extra two lines. I should have thought


that it was false economy to provide for only two lines of traffic now, when four lines will almost certainly be needed later.
My right hon. Friend also said that the amount of traffic which could use the under-pass would be limited by the character of the streets in Knightsbridge and further up Piccadilly. That is undoubtedly so at the present time, but surely my right hon. Friend is not asking us to accept that position as permanent. I hope that by various ways means may be devised for doubling the possible flow of traffic through Knightsbridge and Piccadilly, perhaps by making one-way streets, perhaps by using some of the existing side streets as one-way streets. It is a rather defeatist attitude to say that we are to be permanently limited at Hyde Park Corner by the character of the streets which lead to its approaches.
Of course, further road works of this kind are greatly needed in other parts of London, too. We do not want to have a state of affairs in which there is a great rush of traffic through Hyde Park Corner, which gets blocked in various other bottlenecks of which we all know. At any rate, this is a great step forward, perhaps the greatest stop forward we have taken in our road building plans in London. As such, I very much welcome the Bill and hope that it will be a forerunner to other schemes of this kind all over the country.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: This is a very interesting debate and I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for having taken the opportunity of moving the Amendment and expressing what I am sure he genuinely feels to be a grievance of a number of provincial areas.
It was quite clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) had similar feelings. After all, this is a place where people take every opportunity to ventilate grievances. That is what it is for and, certainly, I shall not complain that my hon. Friends should have done it—as long as we get the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was good enough to say that she had a great liking for London and that it had enormous attractions and was one of the finest capital cities. That

is true—although there are other capital cities which are very fine.
If I may reciprocate, one of the first things I learned when I entered politics as a young man was to have a great admiration for the North of England, for provincial municipalities who were doing progressive work, notably the City of Bradford, in Yorkshire. I have never lost that admiration for the North of England and my kindly sympathy and feelings with that area in any troubles it may have. Since I married a lady from Rochdale, I am still further tied to the North of England, and I am very fond of that town.
However, I want to tell my hon. Friends that I have been a member of a number of Cabinets and that I have studied their outlooks, psychology and mentality. I am not sure that my hon. Friends will believe me, but I can assure them that the place in the country which gets the least consideration and sympathy, from a United Kingdom Cabinet is London.

Mrs. Slater: Hard to believe.

Mr. Morrison: I know that it is hard to believe, and I understand the feeling, but I assure my hon. Friend that that is so. Will they have any sympathy with my point of view—I doubt it—when I tell them that I once asked a Cabinet why London had to suffer the grievance that, because we were distant from the coal mines we had to pay a substantially greater price for coal than did other parts of the country?

Mr. E. Shinwell: You do not have to produce it.

Mr. Morrison: It is not decisive about producing it. Why should London have to pay additional costs merely because of the transport charges? If we have a Socialist conception, why should the idea of an equalisation of charges shock my right hon. Friend, merely because we do not dig the coal in London? I assure my hon. Friends that I raised that point in a Cabinet, but got no sympathy whatever and that all my colleagues, who came from the provinces, Scotland and Wales, either froze me with a deadly silence, or denounced it as an utterly impossible idea.

Sir Robert Cary: Quite right.

Mr. Morrison: Does the hon. Member mean that my colleagues were right, or I was right?

Sir R. Cary: They were.

Mr. Morrison: London suffers from its grievances. In the war we were bombed more than any other part of the country—that is generally admitted and I am not trying to wring any tears about it. Moreover, we were also the worst fed part of the country. I was Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security. I travelled all over the country by car and train, and the further I got from London the better fed I was. That probably could not be helped. Poor old London put up with it. Londoners did not come to the House and say, "We are the worst treated of God's children." It would have been true if they had said it, but they did not because they are a brave lot. They stuck it, and expected to be treated worse than any other part of the country.
Reference has been made to the growing of trees. As I read the Bill, the question of amenities in the park is not so much a question of a present to London; it is an obligation upon the London County Council at least to restore the amenities which were there before. This is a very beautiful park, and it would be a tragedy if it were damaged or messed up in any way. I read the provision more as an obligation upon the Council to restore the amenities—

Mr. Ellis Smith: But not to put more in at the same time.

Mr. Morrison: I gather that more amenities may be included, and I hope that that is so.
I do not know what Hyde Park Corner will look like. I have had a look at the plan and the model upstairs, but I am one of those people who find it difficult to understand plans and models, and I do not really know what it will look like. I expect that it will look all right, but if there is a great open space round which the traffic goes I should have thought that it would be foolish and undignified merely to spread out a slab of concrete and not to have a fountain or two and some other amenities. I regard this provision as an obligation upon the

Council to make the place as fine as it can, so that hon. Members and citizens
who come from the provinces, from Scotland and Wales in great numbers will have something pretty to see in London. We know that it costs them a lot of money to get here, and we think that they should be treated well when they come.
Another point that should be remembered is that London pays a lot of money in taxation to the central Government and to the so-called Road Fund. Whether there is a Road Fund or not I do not know; I do not think that there is. As a matter of fact, it is a sheer fraud. The motoring community is taxed up to the hilt, and the Government just collar the tax. That process was started by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no Chancellor, whether Tory or Labour, has ever abandoned the system. It reminds me of Income Tax, which was started at 2d. in the £ and which was to be stopped in two or three years. No Chancellor has ever stopped it, and no Chancellor is ever likely to.
There it is. The amount of money that goes into the Road Fund is enormous—if, as I say, there is a Road Fund. The money certainly goes somewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South talked about an expenditure of £41 million. I would remind him that 25 per cent. of it will be found by the ratepayers of London, which is treating London a bit better than it was treated in connection with Waterloo Bridge. He also talked about another £10 million being provided, but that is not much when one compares it with what London contributes in motor taxation and other taxation. I advise my hon. Friends not to be unduly disturbed about the point. Heaven knows when we shall have got all that other £10 million. It may be spread over a long period.
I should like to offer a word of advice to the Minister. If he ever brings in such a Bill again let him consider its Title. Just fancy this being called the Park Lane Improvement Bill! It is enough to start up the class-conscious feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House. Half the annoyance of my hon. Friend has arisen because of the Bill's tie-up with Park Lane. My hon. Friend cannot forget


that very well-to-do people live in Park Lane, in the Dorchester Hotel and Grosvenor House. Indeed, find it dfficult not to share his feelings.
The Bill should have been called the Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch Bill—and perhaps the Edgware Road Bill, which is not so respectable—and then the Minister would have been all right. He should not bring in a Bill entitled the Park Lane Improvement Bill, because he is just asking for trouble from the class-conscious revolutionary proletariat.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman conform to the view that, on the whole, the effect of the Bill is destructive of the amenities of Grosvenor House and the Dorchester Hotel?

Mr. Morrison: There will certainly be a fast one-way traffic down Park Lane, and residents in those hotels will have to be careful how they cross the road. On the other hand, I would point out that getting through Park Lane, especially when there are any public dinners being held in the hotels, or during peak traffic hours, is an awful job.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Bill is providing the residents of the hotels with a subway.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but I think that it will be nearer to Hyde Park Corner.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is very strange—and it is not a coincidence—that there is a subway just between Grosvenor House and the Dorchester Hotel.

Mr. Morrison: I shall refer to the subways in a few moments. People have a very interesting psychological attitude towards subways.
There is undoubtedly a great need for an improvement at Hyde Park Corner. It not only carries the most heavy traffic in London; it is one of the most worrying places to drive through. One honestly does not know where the next fellow is coming from and where he is going. One does not know whether he is coming up or is going to cut across one's bonnet, or whether one is going to cut across his. It is a dreadful place, and it is not creditable either to past Governments or to the County Council that the problem has not been dealt with before. It was urgently necessary.
I do not believe that it will make the amenities of the park worse than they are at present. In some respects I think that the amenities will be improved. But if we remember the enormous amount of traffic which goes through the park from Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch we must admit that it is not merely a way through the park; it is really a great main road in London. If we regularise the position and make it a road, besides putting the amenities of the park upon a proper basis, the situation will be better than it is. Marble Arch is not quite so bad as Hyde Park Corner, but it is bad enough.
Reference has been made to the fact that one Clause provides that trees may be planted. I believe that it is an obligation. The planting of trees is a fairly normal local authority obligation. Indeed, one of the finest enterprises in the planting of trees was in the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, in about 1920, when it first had a Labour majority. It was started by Dr. Salter and his wife. Ada Slater. They planted trees in every one of those rather poor Bermondsey streets. Bermondsey was one of the poorest boroughs in London, and Dr. and Mrs. Salter paid for the trees out of their own Council money, without any State grant. That was an imaginative action, and such action needs to be taken in other parts—as it occasionally is taken.
I am a little worried about the underpass. The fact that there will be only two lines of traffic worries me. Has any hon. Member recently been through Blackwall Tunnel? I would advise hon. Members not to go through it. It was built in the days of horse traffic—and when there was not even much of that. If one motor vehicle or horse vehicle breaks down the tunnel is messed up. Now we are going to the expense of building another tunnel, so that there will be two tunnels, each with one-way traffic, and two lines of traffic each way.
Having studied bridge constructions, fly-overs and Heaven knows what in the United States, I am not at all sure that we should not have had a great bridge from Woolwich over to the north side of the river, and let Black wall Tunnel go—but that is by the way. If any hon. Members have been in Blackwall Tunnel they will know what a two-lane traffic


subway means. I think that this is a false economy. If we have to widen the subway later it will cost more than it will if we do the job now, and if we have a blockage in one line of traffic in the under-pass it will mess it up and may also cause trouble outside it. I do not want to attack the Minister over this or to be too aggressive, but I ask him, with respect, to look into the matter again, together with the London County Council to see whether it would be worth while having an under-pass with four lanes which, in my opinion, would be better than the present proposal.
We must think about subways. I am not saying that we should not have them, because they are desirable and necessary in many parts. But the fact is that Londoners do not use them much. There is an amazing honeycomb of pedestrian subways at the Elephant and Castle. I drive through that area every day and, by the way, it is not so bad as it looks. But the number of people who go down the pedestrian subways is relatively few, and the number of people who go flying across the road is large. It may well be an indication of their sense of adventure. Either they do not like the idea of going down the steps through the subway and then having to climb up again—which I can understand—or they have such a lively sense of adventure and a wish to court danger in that they would sooner risk their lives by going across the road. Perhaps the reason is a combination of those two things.
There is a subway at the corner of Parliament Square. I often go across Parliament Street, but I never use the subway and practically no one else does. I wait for the traffic to stop—or hope that it has stopped—and then get over, and sometimes it means making a dash. If we build subways which are not used, it is a waste of public money. If we build them, we must, somehow, see that they are used. The Minister said that in this case the subways will have a ramp, and this may result in their being used to a greater extent.
Whether, in the end, we shall have to resort to compulsion and make pedestrians use the subways, instead of being a nuisance to themselves and others by crossing the road, I do not know. As I drive a car, I do not propose to get into trouble with the pedestrians. We may be

a long way from the time when compulsion is used. But it is true that at present, according to the amount they are used, we are not receiving value for the money we have spent on subways. The Minister must think carefully about this matter and see whether, when the subways are constructed, something can be done to tempt pedestrians into them, and especially the Londoners.
What is to be the future of the traffic in this City? Figures have been bandied about. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) gave some figures about the probable increase in traffic and I expect that he is right. But it is an awful outlook, this limitless increase in traffic. I do not know that we can contemplate the automatic provision of roads for all the traffic which may come. It may be necessary to discourage traffic in central London.
There was a London County Council valuer named Frank Hunt, who was a great man. As an official, he did more about London's Green Belt than anybody else. But on an occasion when there was pressure for roads in London—I think that it was being exerted by David Lloyd George, as he then was, because he was a great enthusiast about roads—and I was "chasing round" about London having more roads, Hunt said to me, "Mr. Morrison, if you are not careful, this will be a city of roads with no buildings on it, and then where is your rateable value to come from?"
That is an exaggeration, but it is a point worth keeping in mind. There cannot be a limitless provision of highways merely because people decide to travel on the roads. It may be that the only way we shall keep traffic out of Soho and the West End will be by making it impossible for cars to get there. But that is a miserable doctrine which I do not wish to develop.
This is a Bill to be welcomed and I congratulate the Minister and the London County Council on its introduction. The Minister will agree that the Council and its officers have been speedy and efficient in this matter. I do not think that London is getting more than its share—I am not sure that it is not getting less. We do not hear about developments in the provinces because Bills are not necessary. It is a matter of arrangement between the local authority and the Minister—

Mr. Tom Brown: But we get a refusal every time.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry about that.
But in London, somehow, there seems always a need for legislation. In this case, I imagine it is because the plan encroaches on a Royal Park; otherwise there would not have been a Bill before Parliament but only legislation involving the London County Council, in which case it would not have attracted so much attention. I do not blame my hon. Friends for taking this opportunity to air their grievances. If we can do anything to help to get their grievances remedied, we will, but I hope that they will not press this Amendment to a Division, and will allow us to have this improvement which, I think everyone will agree, ought to be made.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Like other hon. Members, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) will take comfort from the fact that there is a vast amount of roadwork now going on in different parts of the country compared with what was being done a few years ago. Let us hope, therefore, that not only the schemes in which they are interested but many other schemes will be put into operation as time goes on. It is absolutely essential that we speed up the traffic all over the country as well as in London, because by so doing we shall save an enormous amount of money.
I support what has been said about the danger of this two-lane under-pass. It may well be that a heavy lorry using the under-pass—which is of considerable length with very long ramps, the gradient of which I do not know—and crawling up the gradient may create a traffic jam in the under-pass of such dimensions that it may be quicker to go round the roundabout than through the under-pass. That is a point which should be considered. Hon. Members who have seen the underpasses in Paris and Brussels will agree that not more than one of them has less than three traffic lanes and most of them have four. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) pinpointed the difficulty when he mentioned Black-wall Tunnel. That presents an appalling

example of how congestion can occur. If we spent another £750,000 on making a four-lane under-pass now, that would be a long-term economy.
I have been told by a friend on the London County Council that the idea is to build a two-lane under-pass now and another later on with a separate tunnel. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clear up that point. Is it intended eventually that there shall be two tunnels or is there a possibility that a four-lane under-pass will be built in one tunnel?
I should like to ask a question or two about the roundabout system at Hyde Park Corner. After looking at the plan, I think that the straight section at the south-east end, near the bottom of Hamilton Place, will be rather short for traffic to weave. I hope that the point will be looked into. One of the things causing congestion at roundabouts is that there is not enough length for vehicles to weave in, one with another. That is why Hyde Park Corner is so uncomfortable today to drive through. There is little space for traffic to cross. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South is absolutely right when he says it is a nightmare to drive round. It is not so much the congestion, except in the rush hour, as that one never knows where anything is coming from.
On the speed of completing the work I submit that less congestion will be caused the faster it is done. I wonder how the proposed drive to carry out the work will compare with the rate at which under-passes, overhead roads and other works have been completed in Brussels in the last year and a half. I know there was an incentive because of the exhibition to be held in Brussels next year. The appalling congestion from which we have suffered and the even worse congestion which will take place while the work is in progress are an argument for carrying it out as speedily as possible, even if it makes the cost a little more. The extra money will be recovered in the increased speed it brings about.
I cannot help agreeing with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South about subways. There is a disincentive to pedestrians to use subways because of the trouble of going down the steps and coming up again. I gather that there are not to be steps but ramps, but I think


trouble may still arise. When I was on the London County Council a few years ago a scheme was brought forward for a raised roundabout at the Elephant and Castle with subways underneath but on the level. I think the scheme has been abandoned altogether and something else has been put into its place. It is a pity we cannot have something like that at Hyde Park Corner. There is a difference of level between Constitution Hill and the Piccadilly side and I am wondering whether the subways there will not have any ramp at their south end because people will have to come up the steps. The absence of a ramp would be a little bit more incentive to pedestrians to use the subways. If people cannot be made to use them voluntarily, perhaps we can take steps to put up guard rails and so make it impossible for people to cross the road in any other way.
One of the causes of congestion and difficulty at Hyde Park Corner is that the traffic has to be stopped just outside Constitution Hill for pedestrians to cross the road. There is nowhere else for them to do it. That makes coming round the corner much more difficult. I hope we shall be able to get over the difficulty and, if not compel, then persuade pedestrians to use the subways. I hope the scheme is only the forerunner of a good many others, not only in London and Stoke-on-Trent, but elsewhere. One of the best ways to speed up our economy and save money is to speed up our traffic.

6.44 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Before I turn my attention to the Bill, as I propose to do in a moment, I should like to put on record the fact that I am delighted, after thirteen years association with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), to find at long last some way in which I differ from my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I am glad of the opportunity of saying that in the way he did it and in the context of his speech there was nothing with which I disagreed in principle.
My hon. Friend referred to the areas in which so many of us live who have not the good fortune to live in the capital of this great country. My hon. Friend

the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) described the amenities of Stoke-on-Trent; I noticed that she chose my own constituency rather than her own. There is a reason for that. It is that my constituency is what we call the metropolitan constituency of Stoke-on-Trent. That is where public money is spent rather than in the north or the south. That is inevitable, and cannot be helped. I hope my two hon. Friends agree with me and will not complain. In any event, we are a very happy trio.
I come to the possibilities of criticism of the Bill, and hope that some action will be taken when it is considered in Committee. The cost, £4½ million, is an appreciable sum of money but for solving a problem which has been so intractable it is not too much. Nor can I see how it is possible to economise. I am one of those who have doubts whether the under-pass is big enough considering the development which is likely to take place in London's traffic. The Minister made it clear that there has been an increase in traffic on the road from Knightsbridge moving towards Westminster or Piccadilly. I believe that since 1954 the percentage increase to date is 12 per cent. for the three years. That increase throws a spotlight on how long it will be before the gain which we shall achieve by the under-pass will be overtaken. The under-pass gives us a reserve of 40 per cent. but how long will that advantage last, considering the way in which the traffic is increasing?
If motor car manufacturers start designing cars that are even longer than cars are today the present difficulties will soon return. It seems a long cry since Henry VIII, of blessed memory, enclosed this park, and since Charles I, who was less interested in hunting than in collecting great paintings—for which we are very thankful—opened the park to all the people of the city.
In those early days, London must have been a very pleasant place to live in. It was not a very large city and was on a hill, which was surrounded by magnificent woodlands and fields. At that time from Charing Cross to Hampstead and further the land had been enclosed for the pleasure, certainly of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth. It was only under Charles I, who was


more addicted to the arts than to shunting, that the park was opened to the public.
Monetary values have charged very significantly. I note that we are to find approximately £1⅓ million for compensation and purchase of property to effect these improvements, but at the time of the Protectorate the whole of the park was sold in three lots for £17,068 2s. 8d. There is a note in the Journals of the House for 27th November, 1652, which says:
Resolved that Hyde Park be sold for ready money.
Perhaps £17,068 2s. 8d. was a lot of money in those days. I must say those who bought were not ultimately very fortunate in their purchase. They did the best they could for themselves for a while, they charged for admission to the park—1s. for a carriage and 6d. for a horse, a lot of money in those days—but there was a great deal of ill feeling about it. I notice that Evelyn wrote in his Diary:
I went to take the air in Hide Park where every coach was made to pay a shilling and every horse 6d. by these sordid fellows who purchased it off the State.
Londoners were very lucky, because Charles II came back and declared the sale illegal. In my researches I have not been able to find whether compensation was paid, but this would seem a fragment of retrospective legislation, which is of great interest. I know it is not popular legislation in this House at present, but we have a most respectable precedent for which to use it. I will leave that point there, because it is full of contentiousness and I do not want to put too many ideas into the heads of my hon. Friends, nor even of my right hon. friend the. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who has had so much influence on the Labour Party and this House in general, and certainly upon London.
In supporting the Bill in principle, as I do, I note that the figures given by the Minister emphasised that it is dreadful to negotiate Hyde Park Corner in a car. It is the busiest corner in the whole of this country, not only at peak hours, but at any time in a twelve-hourly period. It is embarrassing to us to drive round it, for reasons which have been given by my right hon. Friend, but one can always tell when a foreigner is trying to do so, whether he comes from Leek, Stoke-on-Trent, France or Germany. He looks as though he is about to collapse.

The technique of infiltration which we have learned to adopt at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch should be got rid of and we should learn to drive safely for ourselves and our neighbours.
We must, however, ask ourselves if the Bill is the way to achieve what we all want. We want the best possible result for as long as possible—permanently if possible. We want it as economically as possible, with due regard to the fact that we are not legislating for other parts of the country but for the capital city of this country and of the Commonwealth. Therefore, we cannot think of economies in the same sense when we legislate for London as we would for a great city like Manchester, or even Eccles, which is not a city but one day may be. I will not mention my own city in case I get into trouble with my colleagues when we leave the Chamber. London has its special position and no one can deny it. I am sure my hon. Friends do not; we are completely agreed on this matter. This must be done aesthetically, in the best practical fashion, and the amenity aspect needs very special consideration.
I have mentioned my doubts about the under-pass. I am no expert and I was very much influenced by what the Minister said in counter to my thoughts and those of many of us this afternoon. He said he doubted whether the surface road could ever hold such traffic as would need a four-lane under-pass. That is a very important point. If his experts so advise him that must weigh with us very much indeed. I am not averse, of course, on principle of saving £750,000 now or any other time, because that will give me an opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which I may do very gladly.
We see that land has to be taken from Hyde Park. That is objectionable in principle, as I am sure the Minister will agree. It is objectionable in principle to take even a yard of open space in this great wilderness of brick and mortar and stone in which people live in this huge city. One must preserve every tiny scrap of open land, especially delectable parks of this description.
There are three points which I think should be particularly the concern of those who are to consider how this improvement is to be effected. First, there


is the question of trees. That has been mentioned and stress has been placed upon it. The trees must be preserved. New trees must be planted, but they must be planted under expert planning conditions in such a way as to ensure that the greatest possible advantage will be derived from them. Secondly, the northbound carriageway inside the park to run parallel to Park Lane should be completely screened from the park itself.
The Royal Fine Art Commission suggested that there should be a mound to separate that carriageway from the park. The L.C.C. considered and rejected that view. It used these words in order to support its rejection:
We take the view that vehicular traffic along the carriageway is now accepted as part of the park scene and we do not consider that the amenities call for visual separation between the park and the traffic.
I do not know whether hon. Members know that it is proposed that every kind of traffic should run on this carriageway, buses and heavy lorries as well as private cars. If that be the case, a new element is introduced from the point of view of enjoying the park, a new and somewhat ugly element. Personally, I should like to see no traffic on the carriageway, but should like it to be reserved purely for pedestrians. We cannot do that; it is impossible. If we must allow buses and heavy vehicles to use it—that is why we are spending this money—what would be the cost of building a mound, which would be grassed over? Is it not well worth while considering such a separation? Certainly the Royal Fine Art Commission thinks it should be considered and has advised it.
The Minister told us that the Royal Fine Art Commission, when consulted, had been very helpful. However, I have noticed reports in the Press that it objected to the scheme as a whole and criticised it in detail. I hope that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gives his answer this evening he will give some information as to what in fact the Royal Fine Art Commission feels about this scheme. Let us have that in some detail. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I asked that. The Commission has not printed anything, I gather.

Mr. Watkinson: The careful words which I used are agreeable to the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Dr. Stross: Let me see whether I understand that correctly. The Minister states that the words which he used are agreeable to the Royal Fine Art Commission. I am very glad to hear that because we are dealing with men who Serve this country very well, even though they are not always quite as modern minded about certain aspects of life as are younger people or people with less experience. I include myself in those with less experience. I have tried to get information from the Commission about what was in the minds of these gentlemen, but I have been unable to do so. They feel that as they have not printed their views they should not give their views. I think that that is a mistake, because I wanted to give their views to the House. I am particularly interested in the amenity aspect of this matter and I am handicapped because I have no information from them.
Nevertheless, I know that they are meeting this afternoon to consider whether they should print and publish their personal views. That will be too late for this debate, and I deplore that fact. I think I have said enough on that point, although the Minister may have noted that in the Fourteenth Report of the Royal Fine Art Commission, 1955 and 1956, the Commission gives its views in page 4 under the heading "Open Spaces". It reads:
London presents a number of special problems, the most urgent perhaps that of traffic congestion. Many proposals have been put forward for easing the situation, but some of them may do more harm than good. The suggestion, for example, that a strip on the east of Hyde Park should be sacrificed to the improvement of the traffic route between Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner has caused the Commission much concern. It does not believe that such a step would contribute much to the solution of the problem and such encroachments on the Royal Parks, which are a unique feature of the capital, would set a dangerous precedent. What is wanted is a comprehensive traffic plan at least for this part of London that would provide substantial relief for Park Lane. Improvements might still be required at Hyde Park Corner and perhaps at Marble Arch but they should not involve encroachment on the park.
We have heard from the Minister that the net loss would be four acres. The gross loss involved is 21 acres, but he worked it out for us that the net loss would be only four acres. Much as I personally like Hyde Park and much as I feel in principle that these gentlemen


are right in saying that we should not give up land from the park if we can possibly avoid it, I think that perhaps they were wrong and that the Minister was right in introducing the Bill when, for the loss of as little as four acres, we are to get as an advantage for our citizens something which is worth while. But what reward are we to give our citizens? I suggest that at least we should offer them a true visual separation from the traffic when they are inside the Park.
Those who are to be responsible for the ultimate decisions have a great responsibility, and we hope that they will give the most careful consideration to every aspect of the problem. Indeed, I am sure that they will. We have many beautiful things in London, and some that are not. I am delighted, for example, to see that the Decimus Burton Screen, as one comes out of Hyde Park, is to be retained. Recently someone wrote to the Press suggesting that we should destroy it because that would make things easier, but I believe that to be quite wrong and absurd. It is a handsome monument and we should retain it.
In London we have three well-known triumphal arches. Only one of them has not been moved and knocked about from pillar to post, and that is the arch outside Euston, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North will agree serves as a Doric entrance to the Potteries or perhaps Glasgow. The second is at Marble Arch, and it always looks lonely because it leads nowhere. Thirdly, we have the Wellington Arch. The French always deny that they were defeated either at Trafalgar or Waterloo, and especially do they deny that they were defeated at Waterloo. When we argue with them and show them how wrong they are, they retort by saying, "When we look at Wellington Arch we have had our revenge."

7.7 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad to note that one of the hon. Members from Stoke-on-Trent supports the scheme proposed in the Bill. If it is any help to him, I should like to tell him that I have seen many schemes for the alteration of Hyde Park Corner and in my view this is better than many which have been presented to the public. As he said, one of these proposals envisaged the removal of the

Decimus Burton screen from Rotten Row. There have been others, too, and looking at them I think the Minister and the Royal Fine Art Commission are to be congratulated on this scheme, which will give a great deal of pleasure to London.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) supported the scheme, because I do not want to be drawn too much into the football match between Stoke City and Hyde Park Corner "Hotspur," which has been going on all day. Nevertheless, I should not like to leave unchallenged the fantastic picture of London painted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). I should not like this fantastic picture to be left in the minds of the House. It was a picture in which only the rich used these subways round Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. These hon. Members showed a truly provincial view of what London is. If they knew the facts they would realise that Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch and even Park Lane form the centre of great offices and that the people who will use the subways will be humble typists and clerks.

Dr. Stross: I could tell from the tone of my hon. Friend's voice that he was thinking not so much of the rich, but of the new-rich.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: There are just as many good workers in the centre of London as in the Midlands or the North of England.
I do not agree that this Bill prevents any schemes from being implemented in the Midlands. I have been in those parts of the country in recent months. When we see the improvements on A.5, the building of the Preston motorway and even improvements in Staffordshire we must admit that the whole country is getting a fair share of the road programme.
It so happens that I have seen more of the traffic at Hyde Park Corner than almost anyone else in the world, because before I entered the House my office was at 148, Piccadilly, right on Hyde Park Corner. It was on the ground floor and I had a grandstand view of the traffic. The house, which is now the headquarters


of The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, Ltd., was formerly the home of the Rothschilds. It is a grandiose building next to Apsley House. When I looked out of the window and saw the traffic being tangled up early in the morning, again in the lunch hour and worst of all between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., with traffic blocks lasting about ten minutes, I could not take a complacent view of the position of Hyde Park Corner.
I am sorry to say, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will pass this on to his right hon. Friend, that the view I had of that situation and of the traffic blocks, was one of the things which led me to approach the Chairman of the R.A.C. about four years ago and say, "Isn't it time we did something about this?" The result was that we founded the Roads Campaign Council, which has been such a thorn in the Minister's flesh ever since.
I managed, also, to get the support of the motor manufacturers, who made a substantial contribution to the funds of the Roads Campaign Council. I was, therefore, amazed and amused to find that one of the first fruits of the efforts of the Roads Campaign Council was that my old office, 148, Piccadilly, the home of the motor manufacturers, was to be knocked down to make way for this new road.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can get away with this. The L.C.C. happened to have in mind this scheme for Hyde Park Corner long before the Roads Campaign Council, excellent though its work is, and I do not think that he should take credit for it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Many take credit for it. I think it must be admitted that the Roads Campaign Council has highlighted the problem of the roads and that this is one of the things which has, perhaps, led the electorate to demand great road improvements. I am glad to say that the Government have listened to what the Council has said.
As a result of this scheme—I should like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who moved the Amendment, to realise this—London will lose some amenities as well as other places. Gone will be the Rothschild House, with its gilt decorations, marble staircases, pictures on the ceilings of the

rooms painted in the style of Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. I am told that the cost of rebuilding that house today would be about £250,000. Gone will be that house when this improvement scheme comes in. The present tenants, I think, have taken all this in good part and the joke on the motor manufacturers has, I think, been accepted.
I am rather surprised today that neither the Minister nor anyone else has tried to calculate what we have lost at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch in fuel and time. I have often tried to make some calculations and it may interest the hon. Members, if they will bear with me for a moment, to listen to them. This is the most heavily-trafficked site in the whole of Great Britain. There are 90,000 vehicles passing around it every day, and I think it fair to say that any vehicle going from Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner inclusive is held up two or three minutes on the average.
Therefore, I calculate that each vehicle must lose about one-thirtieth of a gallon of petrol in that journey. If that figure is correct, we are losing about 3,000 gallons a day in wasted fuel by traffic blocks at these points. That is equivalent to £700 a day, or over £200,000 a year.
So, if, by getting rid of the traffic congestion at these places, Marble Arch, Park Lane and Hyde Park Corner, we can save fuel to the extent of about £200,000 a year, we get a remarkably valuable contribution of nearly 5 per cent. return on the £4½million which we are spending, not counting the return we shall get from cutting out the waste of time as well as the waste of fuel.
I have one or two other small points which, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would reply to or think about. As has been mentioned, 90,000 vehicles go round Hyde Park every day. That means that at peak periods about 10,000 vehicles an hour are passing. We know that there is a limit to the capacity of a roundabout. A gentleman who is an expert on what is called channelisation of traffic, Mr. Nigel Seymer, and who has sent me a lot of correspondence in the past, has said that however big we make the roundabout at Hyde Park it will not be big enough to take all the traffic in the future. I know that this position will be moderated to


some extent by the building of the underpass, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend would say that he has given consideration, with the Road Research Board, to the capacity of the roundabout at Hyde Park, and whether, as we hope, it will be sufficient to take the traffic in the future.
Another point to which I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention is this. Under the new scheme, if one looks at the plan, one will see that coming from Park Lane to Hyde Park Corner vehicles will pass three sets of traffic lights—one outside Upper Brook Street, one at Upper Grosvenor Street and one outside the Dorchester Hotel. So there will be three places of hold up when coming down Park Lane. I suggest that it should be possible, and, of course, it would be preferable, to allow traffic from the south to come up the boulevard, go beyond the point it wishes to reach and then turn right into Park Lane and come back again into the stream of traffic. It would mean cutting one or two minor roads through the grass verge, but it would certainly avoid having traffic lights in Park Lane. Perhaps my hon. Friend would tell me whether he has been able to give attention to that point.
Lastly, we have seen, on the West Cromwell Road extension and at Chiswick, very large and significant notice boards giving the completion date of those schemes. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to put up notice boards in Park Lane and Hyde Park Corner giving the completion date of this scheme which is contemplated. I am quite sure that puting up notices of that type leads the contractors, engineers and everyone concerned to get a move on and to see that schemes are completed in the proper time.
I welcome the Bill as containing a bold and imaginative scheme. The scheme will do much to free traffic and is sadly needed to deal with what is, as must be appreciated, the most heavily-trafficked place in the whole United Kingdom.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to say a few words in reinforcement of the plea of my two hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). There seems to be an impression that when any hon. Member on this side puts

down an Amendment to any Bill he is trying to stir up class war. I assure the Government that such is not the case. It is part of the Parliamentary procedure that we have to adopt to ventilate some of the grievances that affect us every day of our lives. I do not want it to go forth that the differences of opinion in this case amount to a battle between North and South. But what we do ask for, as has been emphasised by my hon. Friend from Stoke-on-Trent, South, is that there shall be fair shares, and a fair distribution of the capital about to be expended upon road improvements. That is all we ask.
Be it remembered, Mr. Speaker, that it is now twenty-one years since any great scheme was adopted in Lancashire—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I quite agree that we must have fair shares all over the country, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is now fifty-two years—1905—since the last great scheme was put into effect in London?

Mr. Brown: I very much doubt whether the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) can sustain that statement. Has he forgotten the amount of money that was expended on the construction of the Waterloo Bridge? That was a great improvement.
I admired every word of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). He was so tolerant, so persuasive, so pleasing, but there was a time. Mr. Speaker, when he was afire and determined to get something done for the London County Council. Now that he has secured some of the things on which he had his mind—well, I will not say that he has taken a back seat, but he is not as vigorous as he was many years ago. I do not blame him for his vigour, because I have learned that in this House one has continually to prod and press the Government to do the things that one thinks desirable.
I know that the Minister and his predecessors must be sick and tired of the Questions that have appeared on the Order Paper about the traffic at Hyde Park Corner. This Bill seeks to relieve the congestion and to increase safety. The authorities have been a long time in starting but, now the Measure is before us, anything that increases the safety factor, anything that decreases the danger


on the roads, must be given wholehearted support by all sensible people. We have heard so much about the alarming road death rate that we are gravely disturbed about what is to happen in the future unless we are prepared to spend some money on road improvements in the country as a whole.
Nevertheless, if there is money available for road improvements, that money should be apportioned on a fair and equitable basis. My mind goes back to the construction of the East Lancashire roadway. How long and how patiently we waited in that county before we got that roadway constructed, but it should also be remembered that that work started and finished only at certain points, and has never yet gone a yard beyond. It is still awaiting full and final completion.
It is with that example before us that we are so anxious to put before the Government the need for fair shares for all. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham has said that Hyde Park Corner is a great business centre, or a great centre where business people live. I grant that. Some of us on this side also remember that the centres from which we come are great industrial centres, where the country's wealth is made. It is because we feel that so keenly that we are now attempting to ventilate our opinions to the Minister, and to ask him to see to it that there is fair shares for all.
The three parks—St. James's Park, Green Park and Hyde Park—have been mentioned. As a Northerner, I often ask myself what this city would be like if it did not have any parks. One cannot imagine London without them. It follows that its parks, like those in other places, are a great attraction for the people, and if they have that great attraction, we must make access to them as safe as possible. To a large extent, that is what this Bill seeks to do.
I know that London is a great city. As a Briton, I am proud of it and of many of its aspects. I scorn others. I scorn some of the things I see in this city, but those things that are beautiful and attractive I greatly admire, and I admire the London County Council for providing them. This is a great city, because it is the pivot upon which the

world moves. It draws people from all countries to conferences and the like from the north and the south. For that reason, it is essential that the city itself must be a model of beauty and safety; and of all the other features that make up a great metropolis.
We are anxious that the Bill should reach the Statute Book but, at the same time, we very strongly press the Minister and the Department to have some regard for other parts of the country. I know that I have said it before, but I come from a mining area. I have lived in the mining areas since I was born. When I compare what is done in the great cities with what has been done in the mining areas I am disgusted at the approach there is to the question of equity in the distribution of money available for capital expenditure on improvements.
The House should, I think, be reminded that in the people's minds today there is a totally different outlook from that of, say, fifty years ago. Half a century ago, we never dreamt of, or advocated the planting of trees in industrial areas, but the rising generation is now asking that that should be done. That demand is coming, not from the politicians, the Parliamentarians or the statesmen, but from the ordinary people. It is they who desire surroundings more beautiful than our forefathers had—and rightly so.
What is the purpose of that education upon which we spend so much money, if it does not broaden the minds of its recipients? Therefore, I say that, as a nation, we ought to help these people to enjoy the things that education has made them desire. A few days ago an article appeared in one of the northern newspapers. This is not something coming from the business people at Piccadilly, or Hyde Park Corner or Park Lane, but from the ordinary working people in Manchester, Eccles, Monton Green, Walkden, Mossley, and most of the industrial towns of Lancashire. This is what it says—in big headlines:
Clean up the towns and cities, and make it possible for us to enjoy the beauties of nature.
We would not have had that twenty-five or fifty years ago, but these people, realising what their forefathers missed, are now insisting on the cities being made more beautiful and the countryside considerably improved, and rightly so.
I was glad to note that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South said, the Bill puts an obligation on the local authorities. The obligation should rest on every local authority to make its towns and cities as beautiful as money and effort can make them. I was also delighted to see a reference to the planting of trees, shrubs, etc. I hope that that will be compulsory; that it will be not only an obligation but a compulsion upon the L.C.C. to plant trees.
Mr. Speaker, while I have been sitting here I have been thinking of a debate that we had when you occupied the very responsible position of Minister of Town and Country Planning. I was one who took part in that debate, which was about the planting of trees. What would London be, what would the parks of London be, without trees? I say that it is of paramount importance that future generations should be able to look back to what was accomplished by their forebears, and to see the vision—and it is a vision—that prompted us to do what we could in our day to give pleasure and joy to those generations which will follow us. Therefore, I am all for the planting of trees and shrubs wherever they can be planted, and I am glad that the Bill contains provision for that.
After all, this country's trees and woodlands are in a worse state than ever in its history. If we look at it from a commercial point of view, we are at the bottom of the league, whereas, we used to be at the top. The Parliamentary Secretary, who used to occupy a responsible position in another Department, knows how vigorously I fought the Ministry of Agriculture and the then Ministry of Fuel and Power, who had the audacity to go along to a woodland district in my constituency and hack down valuable trees. I insisted that trees should be replanted in their place. I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said. If a man cuts one tree down the only thing that relieves him of the guilt upon his shoulders is that he should plant two in its place.
When the figures are produced I hope that I shall be wrong and that my two hon. Friends are wrong, but we should have fair shares for all. Whatever may be the answer to our inquiries, we want more safety and the removal of danger

factors so that the alarming death rate upon our roads, whether at Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane, or wherever it may be may be lessened. If we can remove the dangers to life and limb it is our job to do it. The Bill is an attempt in that direction. I know that there is a feeling that we ought to divide the House, but I do not think that we are so silly as that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Withdraw that. We are not silly.

Mr. Brown: I will withdraw that if it offends my hon. Friend. Shall I say that we should be unwise to divide the House, that we have no desire to divide the House. There is, deep down in our hearts, the desire that whatever is done for the City of London shall be done to a lesser degree in the industrial areas, where all the wealth is made to try to create an improvement for the people who work day after day, and week in week out. That is all we are asking. It is not an unreasonable request. It is a reasonable plea to which sensible men ought to respond. I think that in the course of the next few weeks, or months, when the Minister or the Department may be considering the Government's long or short-term programme, for road improvements the Minister should send some of his officers into the industrial areas, for there we will show him what ought to be done to improve the areas in which we live, especially from a safety and amenities point of view.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I feel no sense of guilt in protracting for a few minutes this very interesting debate on a very intriguing Bill, if I may say so as one who comes from the provinces, say with all sincerity that we should feel grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) who moved and seconded the Amendment. Their action has, as has already been said, given us the opportunity of trying to impress a sense of pro portion upon the minds of the Government about the relative needs for different, parts of the county.
The Minister should have been only too aware that once he presented an important Bill of this kind and designated it as the Park Lane Improvement Bill, the thoughts of those of us who have been industrialised to the very core of our


being would go to the Merthyrs, the Aberdares, the Rhonddas and the Potteries, and so on. The Title of the Bill was the principal thing that provoked me to take interest in it.
I am sorry not to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in his place. He has, I know, been here many hours this afternoon. As I expected, he took exception to the Title of the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted to hear him make his speech, because to some of us he is not only the perfect Londoner; he is a Londoner with a wide streak of the lovable cockney about him. He certainly commands my attention whenever he speaks on any London problem.
He had complaints to make, too. He lamented that London was getting less sympathy from Cabinets than any other place in the country. We doubt whether that is correct, but certainly we from the industrial areas can never be expected to share our sympathies with him. He went further and said that he lamented and complained that, among other things, London had to pay more for coal than most other parts. I would like my right hon. Friend to appreciate that for every ton of coal that London gets, it gets many other things of value from the provinces.
Where would this city be were it not for the fresh blood and culture of the people from the provinces and many from my own small constituency? There are hundreds of graduates here making their contribution to preserving whatever level of civilisation there is in London. They are from the training colleges and universities from all over the country. When my right hon. Friend and others complain about the cost of the goods they have to buy in London, they should remember that no city or town strikes the magnificent bargains that London does with what it gets in human and cultural contributions—not merely in education, but the medical profession, the architects, key engineers who are drawn from my part of the country, and other parts of the provinces. London should be expected to pay a little extra not only for coal, but for many other things she gets from other parts of the country. I cannot help being intensely interested in London.

More than half my family is working here.

Mr. H. Morrison: Making a living.

Mr. Davies: They are doing more than that. With the hundreds of thousands who come in from the provinces, they are filling the needs of the medical and teaching professions as well as other professions, which London by itself cannot do.
However, the Government should remember that we in the provinces cannot help being extremely critical when we come here and see the situation that exists in relation to these insoluble problems. The Minister knows that this is only a small patchwork, a small desperate improvement that the Government are trying to effect in an insoluble situation here in London. I cannot agree that the provinces should suffer as a result of the great expense that is incurred by the vast aggregation of human beings who exist here, who, sociologically speaking, cannot any longer be welded into a social organism. The local authority that—is the London County Council—should have had some regard for the control of the huge streams of humanity who come here, knowing that sooner or later we should have a miserable patchwork of Bills of the type we have before the House this evening to deal with insoluble problems.
This is a costly matter and it means that we in the provinces are deprived of the assistance which we are entitled to request from the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary in particular knows very well that within the last year or so I have had to protest in this House on two occasions. The last occasion was only a few weeks ago when I had to detain the Parliamentary Secretary here after midnight because of a piece of sheer vandalism in my constituency. This sort of thing is becoming commonplace in Wales. I refer to the closing down of railways within my constituency without any regard to alternative means of transport. I have protested on two occasions about this sort of thing, but to no avail. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing he could do except refer to a largely fictitious alternative means of transport.
May I remind the Minister that eleven years ago the Trunk Roads Act was placed on the Statute Book? It was


recognised that Merthyr Tydvil was an appalling bottleneck for the valleys of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, and alternative road schemes were laid down. Yet the Government have done next to nothing to implement what was placed on the Statute Book eleven years ago. We have to protest in cases of this kind. We who come from the provinces appeal to the Ministry of Transport in particular to help us solve our transport problems. I wonder what conception the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have, for example, of the traffic that runs from Merthyr Tydvil and the adjoining valleys into Cardiff. In spite of this Act which has been on the Statute Book for eleven years, nothing has been done by the present Government about the proposed new trunk road from Cardiff, through Merthyr to Brecon and on to North Wales. It is asking too much—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is asking too much that that should be dealt with in a debate on this Bill.

Mr. Davies: I am trying to explain, as my hon. Friends have already tried to explain, why we do not like this Bill. The reason is that the provinces, and particularly the people whom I represent, are being sacrificed in order that the money for this Bill shall be found. We are entitled to draw these comparisons. I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I was about to finish what I had to say. I have made my protest; but we shall continue to make these protests in the hope that we in Wales will get our reasonable share of Government assistance. There is a suicidal move to close down a number of our railways in Wales while at the same time the Government are doing practically nothing to provide us with sufficient means of alternative road transport.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I so seldom disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) that I feet I should mark the occasion by registering my disagreement in public. If they are

still labouring under any sense of injustice, I hope they will feel that sense of injustice to be mitigated by the fact that just about one-third of the time of the debate has been taken up by my hon. Friends who represent Stoke-on-Trent.
Try as I will, I cannot regard this as a savage class Measure perpetrated by a Tory Government, which I detest as much as my hon. Friends, because the truth of the matter is that this is a Bill to implement a scheme put forward many years ago by the London County Council which has had a Socialist majority for the last twenty-three years and is likely to increase that majority next spring. Rather than this being a savage Measure by the Government, it is a beneficial Measure which owes its inspiration to the London County Council. I should like to compliment the London County Council on the patience and the persistence that it has shown in carrying the scheme through to this stage.
I wish the scheme had emerged today in the form in which it began, because the scheme that the London County Council originally conceived was, I think, in many ways as great a scheme as the Waterloo Bridge scheme, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) must take the credit. I was pleased to hear the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) to my right hon. Friend. I think that all of us were delighted today to hear his intervention and to know that London's greatest Londoner is still keeping a benevolent watch on the affairs of the city for which he has done so much, which he loves so well and which, in turn, loves him.
The L.C.C. has had to struggle for a considerable time to get this scheme through, and to reach this stage, and it has involved a great deal of consultation with Government Departments and other authorities. I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Treat, Central about the Royal Fine Art Commission. The only information we had before the Minister's speech this afternoon, apart from the very short reference in the Fourteenth Report of the Royal Fine Ant Commission, to which my hon. Friend referred, was a reference in the Press which was taken from the report of the


Town Planning Committee of the London County Council. This report stated:
Apart from the Royal Fine Art Commission there has been agreement by these authorities"—
the various organisations that is involved—
on the general form of the improvement. The Commission is opposed to the scheme in general and has criticised it in detail.
We know from our previous experience that the Royal Fine Art Commissioners are a body of conscientious men who are doing a remarkably good piece of work for the benefit of the entire country as well as of its capital. It would be helpful, however, to have the views of the Commissioners made more readily available to hon. Members on occasions of this kind. I suggest—and I hope that the Royal Fine Art Commissioners will note these suggestions—that when their advice is sought on such a scheme, which is a most important one, involving twenty-one acres of the Royal Parks, and obviously having a great effect on the amenities of the capital, it would be helpful if the Commissioners would make their views public, or at any rate be rather more co-operative with this House, with the Library of this House and also with the hon. Members, than they have shown themselves on this occasion. After all, they are a body which is maintained out of national funds, and I feel that we are entitled to have their views made available to us just as much as to Ministers of the Crown and other public bodies which seek their advice.
If some aspects of this scheme are disappointing, I do not think that the fault rests with the London County Council. The fault rests with the Ministry of Transport, which has been acting in this matter as the agent of the Treasury. We have had another example of the penny wise and pound foolish policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite believe to be the same as prudent management.
The Minister said very properly that we must not depreciate the work that is done here in the United Kingdom. It is the Minister's job to give an impression of great activity, and he does it very well indeed and, if I may say so, with considerable charm. On the other hand, we

know that, if we take into consideration other countries, there is not only the tremendous programme in Brussels, to which my hon. Friend referred, but New York City at present has a £200 million road programme in hand. Many of us too have seen the amazing achievements of the City of Rotterdam and the contributions made there to the solution of the traffic problem by the building of tunnels and other road improvement methods of that kind.
In the Park Lane improvement scheme, we have, thanks to the London County Council, the first really serious attempt to deal with the traffic problem at a point where, as hon. Members have said, about 80,000 vehicles, or more, pass every twelve hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said with a note of pathos in his voice that he had waited fifty years for the Barton Bridge scheme to be approved. In London we have waited fifty-five years since the first really substantial contribution to the problem of traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner. It was in 1902 that part of the Green Park was cut away in order to relieve congestion. Then, of course, thirty years ago there was a rather less major scheme when roundabout working was introduced. In spite of all the efforts made in 1902 and at later stages, traffic congestion has persisted.
The L.C.C. scheme, as I understand it, would have cost originally approximately £5,800,000. The Ministry of Transport insisted on that amount being reduced to £4,550,000. That reduction, said the Ministry of Transport, involved the L.C.C. in doing two things. First, they had to cut out one of the twin two-lane tunnels and have instead one tunnel with two-way working. Secondly, they had to alter the layout of the island sites at the Marble Arch and at Hyde Park Corner.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South referred to the Black-wall Tunnel and told of the difficulties that arise by having one single tunnel with two-way working, and that point was taken up by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will look at it again seriously and dispassionately, because clearly there is a great deal of apprehension on both sides of the House as to whether the present proposed arrangement will serve the purpose for which it is intended.
I was interested to read in the Daily Telegraph on 7th December a letter from Mr. John Baker White, whom many of us will remember as a member of this House. Referring to the under-pass he wrote:
Unless it is capable of carrying as many streams of traffic as do the roads it connects, it is bound to cause congestion…
Later he wrote:
Would it be all that more expensive, if there are going to be underpasses at all, to excavate to an adequate width instead of building what may well prove to be a double-necked bottle?
The Minister expressed himself as satisfied that the proposal would meet the situation, at any rate for the next ten or fifteen years, but I think the House will be well advised to realise that this is not the view of the Westminster City Council, the local authority controlling the Hyde Park Corner area. The General Purposes Committee of that Council was reported on 12th November, 1957, as having said:
Experience will show after a short while that two traffic lanes in each direction are essential, and that to increase the capacity of the underpass once it has been constructed, will prove to be much more costly than to provide four traffic lanes from the start.
If we continue in this world of inflation, with building costs rising day after day, it is obviously false economy to put off until tomorrow something that we could be doing today; so I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the views of the Westminster City Council, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and of all other hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion.
Even supposing that it was wise to postpone the actual construction of one of the tunnels, I want to put to the Minister the following point which reveals an even greater absurdity. The London County Council is intimately involved in the architectural work which will be required. I am informed that the L.C.C. suggested to the Ministry of Transport that, whilst accepting the decision that one tunnel must not be built, the architectural treatment should nevertheless provide for a double portal at each end. The purpose of this would be that the whole surface work would not have to be altered when, as will inevitably happen, the second under-pass is built. I think it was incredibly, and almost criminally, shortsighted of the Ministry

of Transport to turn down that suggestion when it was made. It would have been a reasonable compromise between the Ministry of Transport at the centre and the local authority actually carrying out the work.
I said that the reduction insisted upon by the Ministry involved two changes. The second change was the alteration in the proposed layout at Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner. I think that from the amenity point of view that alteration will prove to be serious in its effects. The treatment which is now proposed in the interests of economy is humdrum and uninspired compared with what we have a right to expect at sites of such importance. I would stress that in making these criticisms I intend no disrespect to the London County Council, because I feel that the responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister himself.
At Marble Arch the island site could have been paved and treated at different levels, with tremendous advantage both to its appearance and to its amenity value. Instead of that we shall have a flat, grassy, rather sterile site of the kind that we have in Parliament Square.
At Hyde Park Corner the same sort of thing will result. There one could have had a magnificent scheme if real imagination had been allowed to be shown. There we have wonderful trees, especially the trees which are at present part of the Green Park, and one could have had a combination of the trees with water, and with paved areas.
However, the difficulty with which the London County Council has had to contend is a two-fold one. There has been not only the difficulty of meeting the budget imposed upon it by the Minister of Transport. There has also been the difficulty created by the insistence of the Ministry of Works upon a processional way across the island site. It seems a pity at this time that it should be necessary to determine the character of an island site by the need for having a processional way going across it. I should have thought that it was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the time for the processional way to go round the square instead of across it. But, if it had been possible to have paved areas, as the London County Council wanted, instead of the grass that the Minister's


economic budget has dictated, it would have been, possible to have a processional way winding its way across the paved areas of the island site without it being obviously a processional way, as it is, and as hon. Members will appreciate if they look at the plans which have been on show in the Palace of Westminster.
It is a great pity that, with this wonderful opportunity for landscaping and proper planning, we should instead be having a rather prim and prissy and neatly clipped grass, site where there will be paths winding around it and presumably a notice saying that walking on the grass is strictly forbidden. So, out of what started as a wonderful and imaginative scheme submitted by the London County Council—one which we still welcome—has emerged a scheme which is far less worthy, far less adventurous, and far less imaginative than we had, a right to expect, and than the one to which the people of London are entitled.
That is why the Opposition are critical of the scheme. We wish the Minister had been more generous in his attitude to the London County Council. Although we have no confidence in the ultimate contribution which the scheme will make to the solution of the traffic problem, we nevertheless welcome the fact that the Minister is making some attempt, and we shall watch the carrying out of the scheme with interest.

8.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have had an interesting debate, which has covered many aspects of London's traffic needs and the needs of many other parts of the country as well. I have listened with interest to almost all of it.
In the main, the Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House, even if with some reservations. It occurred to me as I listened to the very agreeably delivered speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that it hardly lay in his mouth to chide Us for being penny wise and pound foolish. He had this plan, or something like it, before him when the Labour Party formed a Government, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends did nothing with it at all. Therefore, it seems

to me that a little more, credit to my right hon. Friend and the present Government might not have been out of place.
The Title of the Bill has caused offence in some quarters. I would hope that the hon. Members representing- Stoke-on-Trent will be able to say, with Romeo, that
…a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet…
I hope that they will not be deterred by the fact that this is called the Park Lane scheme, but will see that it gives great benefit to very many people, not only those who live in London but many who live elsewhere.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made a reference to the necessity for the Bill. I should like to confirm that the only reason why this piece of road work has to be separately legislated for is that it involves using part of the Royal Parks. We are fortunate—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) generously acknowledged this—in having Her Majesty's gracious approval to this scheme, for this has made it possible for the land to be made available, and has incidentally, saved us very much in respect of the acquisition of property. Road works elsewhere do not require legislation at all; they require nothing more than the approval of my right hon. Friend and the normal approval of the House in the Estimates.
Anxiety has been expressed about the amenities. I will read again for the better information of the House what my right hon. Friend read as expressing the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission:
The Royal Fine Art Commission have seen the outline of the plan. They are opposed to encroachment on the Royal Parks, but they have made some helpful suggestions to us on the details of what has now been proposed. These concern the treatment of the island at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
Here, the hon. Member for Rossendale was misinformed. Nothing has been settled yet about the layout of these islands. The L.C.C. has certainly not had its ideas turned down by us, and the final layout will, of course, be settled between the London County Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission and ourselves, and everything possible will be done to see that it is something suitable.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. Would it be possible, before any conclusion is reached, for the hon. Gentleman to consult hon. Members on both sides of the House who are specially interested in matters of this kind?

Mr. Nugent: I should like just to con-elude this part of my speech, and then I have a suggestion to make, concerning the treatment, which might be acceptable to the House.
The effect on the park of the inclusion of the East Carriage Drive in the new Park Lane and the facilities which will be available for parking when the scheme is completed is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, the London County Council and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport are giving consideration, and we shall, of course, have occasion to consult the Commission again when we come to work out many of the details.
What I had to suggest to the House was that I should ask the London County Council, as soon as the designs and landscape drawings are completed, to arrange an exhibition of them so that right hon. and hon. Members and others who are interested would have a chance to see what is proposed. We entirely accept that this is a matter of tremendous interest not only to hon. Members but to many persons outside, and that we must do everything that is humanly possible to ensure that the amenities are all that they should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) asked how long the work would take. The estimate—it is only a very rough one—is three or four years. It is a particularly difficult job to carry out, because this enormous volume of traffic must be kept moving at the same time. When the contract has been let, there will, of course, be very careful consultations between the London County Council, the contractor and ourselves, to ensure that the work is carried out so that there is the minimum of interference with this very important traffic flow.
For the treatment of the various spaces, railings, structures, and so on, £450,000 is being reserved and the House can be

assured that the intention and the resources are there to see that the visual effect is all that it should be.
I entirely share the sentiment of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in my affection for trees. The trees in the London parks are a wonderful feature. Tremendous character and beauty are there and all the year round the trees are there for everybody to enjoy. I quite agree with him that we have a duty to see that the wonderful amenity of our parks is fully preserved.
There was a great deal of discussion about the under-pass and much anxiety was expressed about whether a four-lane under-pass should be built and whether a two-lane under-pass was sufficient. The estimated traffic capacity of the scheme gives a reserve of 40 per cent. over the present traffic volume. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pointed out that the traffic flow had increased by more than 10 per cent. since 1954 and he asked whether we were not being optimistic in thinking that a 40 per cent. reserve would be enough.
In fact, the 1956 count of 91,000 vehicles per 12 hours shows an increase of only 10 per cent. over the 1935 traffic flow there. In fact, the 1954 traffic flow was only roughly equivalent to the 1935 traffic flow. That confirms my impression that the capacity of the roads leading to Hyde Park Corner is already very near the maximum. No doubt it can increase somewhat, but it would be a mistake to expect that the increase of traffic which will take place at Hyde Park Corner will be by any means of the same proportion as in the rest of the country. The 75 per cent. increase over 1954 which we advised local authorities to have in mind in designing their road capacity refers to rural areas, but in this case, as hon. Members will see from the information I have just given, the picture is very different.
Hon. Members asked a number of questions about the under-pass. The two-lane under-pass will have a total capacity of 2,000 to 2,500 vehicles per hour. The count of Piccadilly—Knightsbridge traffic on the estimated basis of 1954, was a maximum of 1,780 vehicles per hour. We think that the actual maximum will not be more than 1,600 vehicles per hour, so that on that basis


the reserve capacity in the two-lane underpass will be about 40 per cent.
The House can see from that that the reserve capacity of the whole lay-out of the above-ground roundabout system and the under-pass provides a substantial reserve capacity over any increase of traffic which we can expect in the next ten or fifteen years, or possibly indefinitely.

Mr. Russell: At what speed is my hon. Friend calculating that capacity? Surely, everything depends on the speed of the traffic. If there are only two lanes of traffic, one heavy vehicle going along slowly will slow up the whole stream and speed is vital.

Mr. Nugent: These calculations are based on figures supplied to us by the Road Research Laboratory and I think that my hon. Friend can take them as being a reliable basis on which to assess the relative virtues of the different schemes. On the basis of the figures which I have just given, it is evident that the capacity of the design which we are now advocating, a single under-pass plus a new roundabout system, is sufficient for many years to come and possibly even indefinitely.
As it would cost an extra £750,000 to build a second under-pass—here, at any rate, is one point on which I can roundly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—that money could be very much better spent elsewhere, because we may never need the second under-pass. If we do need it, it is perfectly true that it will be a separate under-pass, as the hon. Member for Rossendale suspected.
However, to provide portals large enough to take both under-passes, for which the hon. Member asked, would necessitate taking a large additional slice from the south of the Hyde Park region as well as demolishing a number of additional houses to fit in a slipway beyond the portal. We felt that in the circumstances we should not be justified in doing that, but if and when the situation changes the additional cost of building it separately will not be serious.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked about an under-pass at Marble Arch. The capacity at Marble Arch is estimated to be a

25 per cent. reserve over the present volume. An under-pass there would be very costly and would involve heavy demolition in the Edgware Road. One of the troubles is that hardly any of our roads is wide enough to put in underpasses without demolishing houses on either side—unlike those in continental cities. We felt that in the circumstances we should not be justified in contemplating the extra heavy expense and the demolition when we had a substantial reserve capacity of 25 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked why we did not have a channelised system. There has been much comment outside the House on that. The working group studied that very carefully along with a number of other systems. The channelised system was used here a good deal before we started developing roundabouts. It consists of putting islands and raised strips in the road to channel traffic round at intersections and then controlling the traffic with systems of traffic lights.
Such a system is cheaper initially, but when our experts studied its effects at the Hyde Park Corner intersection they computed that the extra time traffic would take in a channelised system would be double that in the lay-out we now have and it would also inevitably involve the demolition of the Decimus Burton screen, which the whole House would deprecate. On those grounds, we considered that it was not a starter.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It would mean not necessarily the demolition, but, I suppose, the removal of the Decimus Burton Screen from over Rotten Row.

Mr. Nugent: "Demolition" is perhaps too strong a word, but many of us would be extremely sorry to see it even moved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham also asked me about the traffic lights at the park gates at Park Lane, Grosvenor Gate and Stanhope Place. He asked me why we did not have a weaving system which would allow traffic to move east or west from the Mayfair area into or out of the park. He asked why we did not provide gaps in the central reservation so that traffic could filter through.
The answer is that we studied this very carefully as an alternative, but the system


involves vehicles, when travelling eastwards, travelling round an extra loop before emerging on to Park Lane. They then have to wait at the exit until a gap appears in the traffic flow, when they must weave through until they can turn off to the left into Mayfair.
We have computed that the time taken to do these operations would be significantly longer than the wait which would occur at the traffic lights. I have satisfied myself about this, and I went into the question in very great detail. Nor was that the only disadvantage. In addition, to get traffic weaving across at all at the peak periods—which take up most of the day in Park Lane—it would be necessary to have a policeman standing in the traffic flow to get the traffic across. Extra police duties would be involved, and it would be a very hazardous job for a police patrol.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who appeared to have a nostalgic feeling about the matter, asked me about No. 148 Piccadilly. The hon. Member for Enfield, East and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South were also concerned about this building. It is a very valuable building, and we should certainly have preserved it if we could. The limiting factor here was the weaving length required for the vehicles coming down Park Lane, moving round the central island in Hyde Park Corner, and going off down Constitution Hill or Grosvenor Place.
That flow of traffic has to weave into the stream coming from Knightsbridge and going up Piccadilly, and there has to be a sufficient length going eastwards between the junction of the Apsley carriageway and Hyde Park Corner and the eastern extremity of the Hyde Park Corner island. The junction as it is now planned provides the absolute minimum length. There would have been room to get between the buildings, but, unfortunately, the weaving length left would have been dangerously short, and we were driven to the present solution.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If that is the minimum length it would surely have been better to use Hamilton Place, which would have given a far longer weaving length. Has consideration been given to that alternative?

Mr. Nugent: Consideration has been given to that possibility, but it is not easy to understand these discussions without a model. In fact, the use of Hamilton Place would give no weaving length at all; it would bring the southward flow of traffic directly into the traffic flowing from west to east, at right angles, and it would have made the problem worse, because the two traffic flows would have met actually on the bend. We looked at that point very carefully indeed.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South expressed anxiety about the pedestrian crossing problem, and we agree that it is a very real one. My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) was also concerned about it. The subways will be made as attractive as we can make them, wherever possible with ramps, so that prams and cycles may be taken through them. Those hon. Members who have seen the new subways at the Cromwell Road extension will know that subways can be made quite attractive when they are tiled and decently constructed. They are a very different proposition from the old type. I hope, therefore, that pedestrians will be encouraged to use them.
In any event, on the surface we shall do what we can to discourage pedestrians from taking a chance and going across the road by fixing guard rails on the central reservations. The fact is that, without exception, the Londoner is the most adventurous jay walker in the world, and whatever we do we shall probably not be able to stop some Londoners from "having a go". It is just in their blood. But we intend to do the very best we can to provide safe ways for pedestrians to cross, and I hope that they will be sensible and use the facilities which we shall provide.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North supported by the hon. Member for Ince and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies)—but, I am glad to say, opposed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—felt keenly that under the Bill London was getting more than its fair share of the road works of the whole country. To convince the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and his hon. Friends. I have ascertained how the figure of £10 million compares with the expenditure over the whole country. In


his speech my right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there is at present about £10 million worth of road works going on in London. That is the volume of work which has been authorised over the past three financial years. The comparable figure for the whole country is £150 million, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will recognise that London is not getting more than its fair share in this matter, certainly measured on a population basis.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We appreciate the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary is making a very reasonable reply, and we also like the way in which he is handling the matter, but the Minister said that he was informed that there would be further work, on top of the £10 million. According to the experts there may be several more millions.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member need not fear. The volume of work that we are authorising for the whole country continues to rise, and there will, naturally, be more to do in London. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has asked me to take the chair of a joint committee of the Ministry and the London County Council, so that we can look ahead for the next twenty years to see what is the best road plan that we can work out to satisfy the demands of London traffic and preserve the amenities of London, within the resources that the nation may be able to devote to it.
We are looking ahead over most of the country, and I can assure the hon. Member and his hon. Friends that we assess most carefully the relative priorities of the different schemes. We have our divisional road engineers all over the country—including South Wales—and we very carefully assess each road scheme in terms of the volume of traffic which it carries, and especially the volume of commercial traffic, which gets top priority. We also assess the road safety factors. We do all that is humanly possible to see that we get these matters in the right order.
At the end of the day, however, I have to confess that we cannot get round the fact that the arrears of inaction over the past two decades are very great. We cannot, in one stroke, overtake them all. But I hope that the House will be assured that everything is done to assess priorities in the fairest possible way.
There are many other interesting points which could be discussed but which will have to be left to the Committee stage. London bristles with traffic problems, with its narrow streets and junctions that were really laid out for the horse and carriage. But the streets and buildings which line them are part of the charm and character of our great city.
To preserve the treasures and improve the traffic flow is a formidable challenge, but my right hon. Friend and I feel that we are equal to it. By this Measure we feel that we are making a contribution to an improved traffic flow in London which every driver in central London will appreciate. We are determined, with the London County Council and the Royal Fine Art Commission, at the same time as helping road users, to do all we can to preserve the great treasures which we find in this part of London.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the seventh day after this day in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to stand referred to the Committee, but that if no such petition is presented, or if all such petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Standing Committee:

Any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the prayer of his Petition, to be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents, upon his Petition provided that the Petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill to be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against the Petition:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Orders of the Day — PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the London County Council to carry out certain street improvements in the vicinity of Park Lane partly on lands comprised in Hyde Park and the Green Park and partly on other lands, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation or of the Minister of Works attributable to the provisions of the said Act; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister of Works under the said Act.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTY OF CONSERVANCY BOARD.)

8.33 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
and of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) raised this matter during the Second Reading debate, but he did not get a very satisfactory answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I hope that tonight we may be given a more satisfactory answer.
There are a number of safeguards in the Bill requiring the Board to have regard to the desirability of preserving the natural beauty and the flora and fauna of the district, but there is nothing about salmon, salmon-trout, or sewin, which, as everyone who knows that part of the world will realise, is of considerable importance. This is not so much the sport

of kings or of lairds but of nearly everyone who cares at all for the gentle art. There is not much of a means test about it, but I think I had better not go into the reasons for that.
There may be obstruction and difficulties caused by activities carried out under the terms of the Bill. For instance, dredging could be undertaken and a barrage might be constructed which would prove a considerable obstruction and prevent the salmon from reaching the spawning beds in the higher reaches of the river. I have looked at the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, which contains certain provision to prevent this kind of thing from happening and makes it an offence; but, unless the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can say to the contrary, I do not think that the provision in that Act would cover this particular instance.
I hope, therefore, that we shall find an opportunity to include the Amendment within the Bill and so make the thing absolutely certain. It is an important provision to fishermen of all classes, and it has an important effect upon the tourist trade. Perhaps, as a justice of the peace, I had better not define the position any more clearly.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): The Amendment moved by the hon. Lady seeks to place a duty on the Board to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that salmon and sea trout are able at all times to ascend to the spawning beds in the upper reaches of the river. I am aware that there is anxiety about the effect of the development of the Haven upon the run of salmon and sea trout. I do not need any persuasion from the hon. Lady on the sporting aspect of the matter.
I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to two points. I do not think that any works are likely to be done by the Conservancy which will affect salmon and trout. She referred to the barrage; we do not know very much about that, because the authority will have to come to Parliament with its scheme. She mentioned that under subsection (6) the Conservancy has a duty to conserve the fauna and it may well be, as the hon. Lady said, that salmon and trout will be included under that collective name.
I have pleasure in accepting the hon. Lady's Amendment. After what she has said, it would be correct for the proposed words to be included in the Clause.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I have a couple of points to put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Subsection (1, b) refers to lines of demarcation and the powers of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board. The paragraph ends with the words:
as far as the tide flows.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary define what he means by those words? If there is to be a barrage across the Haven it may make an alteration in the flow of the tide. If the Parliamentary Secretary means what I imagine he means, I am sure there will be no difficulty. It is very important, if a barrage is constructed, that the powers of the water board which constructs the barrage are reserved to the area in which the reservoir is made, above the barrage; in other words, up to the foot of the barrage.
The second point is the question of the duty which is laid upon the Board under subsection (6) that,
In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what those words mean. They can mean anything. When it comes to consulting the National Parks Commission on questions of amenities, I should like to know how the procedure will work.

Mr. Neave: I think the hon. Member is quite right to raise the first point on the concluding words of Clause 1 (1, b) and the meaning of the words,
as far as the tide flows.
The position is, as he said, that if the Prescelly Water Board erects a barrage by permission of Parliament that phrase would mean up to the foot of the barrage. Under the Bill at the moment

the Conservancy would have jurisdiction right up to Haverfordwest. It would not need that jurisdiction, one would have thought, if the water board erected a barrage. If there is a question of erecting it in the tidal water that would affect the régime of the river.
The position under subsection (6) is that we are putting a statutory duty on the Board to have regard to all questions of natural beauty in the Haven. There is similar protection in the private Acts of the dock authorities within the Haven. The point is made about consultation in a further Amendment—to the First Schedule, page 24, line 21—which will enable the appointment of one member of the National Parks Commission, who no doubt will be in consultation with the Board on exactly those points.

Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but I am seeking an assurance that sometimes these considerations and discussions with the National Parks Commission will take place on the level of officials without necessarily reaching the Board. That is a more effective way of dealing with the machinery than taking it up to the Board, where it becomes a main issue.

Mr. Neave: I think that point is borne in mind and I will draw it to the attention of those responsible. The hon. Member can be satisfied that a member of the National Parks Commission will have the point brought to his attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(POWERS WITH RESPECT TO DREDGING, ETC.)

The Chairman: The proposed Amendment in page 5, line 19, after the second "or", to insert "(iii)" is unnecessary, as the printer will put that right.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out "in any" and to insert:

(i) in any place or manner such as to cover any submarine cable placed or maintained by the Postmaster-General or to impede in any way the inspection, maintenance, removal or renewal of any such cable; or
(ii) in any other place, being a.


I gather that I do not have to move the next Amendment, to page 5, line 19, but, if it, is convenient, I suggest that with this Amendment I am moving we might consider the Amendment to page 6, line 28. It is consequent upon the first Amendment proposed to the Clause.
The position, as hon. Members who were present on Second Reading know, is that the bed of Milford Haven is largely rock and will involve the Conservancy in a certain amount of blasting and dredging operations which it has power to do under the Bill. The purpose of these Amendments is to safeguard some submarine cables placed or maintained in the Haven by the Postmaster-General and it is at his request that I move this Amendment.
The submarine cables may be affected in various ways by dredging or blasting operations, but as at present drafted subsection (4) prevents the Board from exercising the power conferred by subsection (2) to remove and resite submarine cables placed or maintained by the Postmaster-General and requires the Board to give at least 28 days' notice before any exercise of its powers under subsection (1)
within a distance of fifty yards or, in the case of blasting operations, within one hundred and fifty yards of any such cable.
There is, however, nothing to safeguard the cables from having materials deposited on them which obviously might do damage to them and there is a slight danger that subsection (1) might be held to authorise the Board to interfere with Post Office cables once notice given by the Board under subsection (4) had expired. The first Amendment accordingly restricts the place or manner in which the Board may deposit dredged materials. The second Amendment is entirely drafting. The object of the third Amendment is to ensure that Clause 4 cannot be construed in such a way as to authorise the Board to interfere with submarine cables placed or maintained by the Postmaster-General.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is a new doctrine, Sir Charles, that printers may correct a Bill which is before the Committee.

The Chairman: It is not a new doctrine. It is usually done by the printers.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I looked at the original Bill, before the reprint, and I found that this word occurs in both places. I should have thought that the proper course was for the Committee to make the alteration, but I do not press the point.
It seems to us to be quite proper for these cables to be safeguarded in this way. The Amendment stops what may have been a loophole.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 28, leave out from beginning to "any" and insert:
Nothing in this section shall authorise any interference with."—[Mr. Neave.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(POWERS WITH RESPECT TO DISPOSAL OF WRECKS.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, to leave out the first "be."
This is another printing error.

The Chairman: But not the same as the one before.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(PROTECTION OF CROWN INTERESTS IN WRECKS.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "either".

The Chairman: I think that this Amendment should be taken with the Amendment in line 21.

Mr. Neave: These are both drafting Amendments and should go together. They simplify the wording of Clause 6 (1, a) and correct a small grammatical error. They make no change at all in the effect of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 21, leave out second "of".—[Mr. Neave.]

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 38 and to insert:
(2) The Board shall give notice in writing to the Admiralty and to the Minister of any decision of the Board to exercise in relation to any vessel any of the powers aforesaid other than the power of lighting and buoying.


Hon. Members will recall that the Clause affords protection to the Crown in respect of certain wrecked vessels which the Board may wish to raise. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Board to do so in an emergency without first being required to give notice in writing to the Admiralty and to the Minister. There may be a Government interest in any ship sunk in the Haven and it is necessary to have Government consent to raise it, except where it has to be dealt with in an emergency.
The Clause as at present drafted requires the Board to give notice in writing to the Admiralty and Minister before it can deal with a wreck even in an emergency. This might obviously cause delay. The Amendment would allow the Board to proceed in an emergency without first giving notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(COLLECTION OF DUES.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, after "person", to insert:
authorised in that behalf by the Board".
Under subsection (1) of the Clause it is clear that it might be necessary for the collector of dues from vessels in the Haven to go aboard from time to time to settle certain difficulties which may have arisen. As the Clause is at present drafted the collector of dues may take with him to a vessel "any other person" whom he may choose. It seemed to us undesirable that this should not be defined more closely to prevent any question of any irresponsible person having access to the vessel.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the collector may be accompanied by a person authorised by the Board, as, for instance, a lawyer or somebody from the Conservancy Office.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out "Commissioner" and to insert "Commissioners".
This is another printing error.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to Wind part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD.)

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 20, line 41, after "year" to insert:
which shall be laid before Parliament".
We drew attention to the purpose of this Amendment when we had the Second Reading debate. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what took place. We suggested then that the accounts which the Minister would receive at the end of each year should be laid on the Table of both Houses. We felt that, in those circumstances, the House would have some authority and supervision over what was being done by this authority which has delegated powers.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, said that he thought that the provisions of Clause 18 were sufficient to meet the point. I have made certain inquiries since then and I find that that is not so, and that the accounts are laid only when the Act compels them to be laid. In other circumstances, where there is no provision in the Act, they are not so laid and Parliament, in that sense, does not maintain a continuing supervision of what is done by the authority.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I take the view that a matter of great principle is involved. When Parliament creates a non-parliamentary body and clothes it with very general authority and power, Parliament should have the right of examining how that power is being exercised. We do not think that it is sufficient for the Minister merely to have the accounts. After all, there is a responsibility set up between the authority and the Minister, but a link is missing in the chain. The Minister's responsibility to this House is not provided for unless there is a provision that he should lay the accounts on the Table of both Houses. In our view, Parliament can only maintain a supreme place with regard to the exercise of such delegated powers by a provision of the sort proposed in the Amendment.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has considered this matter and I hope that the nature of his reply will enable me subsequently to say a few words about it.

Mr. Neave: I have paid great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said in the Second Reading debate. It is, of course, quite true that we have made full provision in the Bill for the accounts and the auditors' reports to be kept available for inspection by the public without charge. He did, however, make the point in that debate, and I said that it would be considered, that the accounts should be laid before Parliament. There are certain precedents for that so far as dock and harbour authorities are concerned. In these circumstances, I propose at a later stage in these proceedings to move an Amendment which, I think, may be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman.
As the Amendment stands, the Minister would have to lay only one copy of the accounts before one House of Parliament and there would, therefore, have to be some other copies supplied, for which provision would have to be made in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment, I shall have much pleasure in moving that at a later stage.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule.—(MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BOARD.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 24, line 8, to leave out "sixteen" and to insert "seventeen".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if this Amendment and the following six were considered together.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It would be quite convenient, Sir Charles.

Mr. Neave: Most of these Amendments are consequential on the Amendment, in page 24, line 21, leave out paragraph (f) and insert:
(f) one by the National Parks Commission;
(g) one by the Minister after consultation with such persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of organised labour in Wales as he may consider appropriate;
(h) three by the county council of Pembroke.

The purpose of the Amendment is to alter the constitution of the Board, first, by adding a representative of the National Parks Commission; secondly, by providing that the representative of organised labour will be appointed by the Minister and not by the Pembroke County Council; and, thirdly, by paragraph (h), reducing the number of members appointed by the county council by providing that the representative of organised labour should be appointed by the Minister and not by the county council.
The position, therefore, is that we should have a representative of the National Parks Commission on the Board and one trade unionist appointed by the Minister. As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is that there should be two representatives of organised labour, and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) also wishes to add a member of the "South Wales River Board." I am afraid that she has not got the name quite right. It is the South West Wales River Board—

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Another misprint.

Mr. Neave: Perhaps another misprint.
Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with other points before hon. Members opposite put their case for their Amendments. Paragraph (f) of my right hon. Friend's Amendment in page 24, line 21, deals with the representation of the National Parks Commission, and it is designed to meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the safeguarding of amenities under the Bill. The National Parks Commission has, in fact, asked to have a representative on the Board. That is why I am moving this Amendment, although I think that it will be agreed that there are already strong safeguards in the Bill for amenities as a whole, and that this will make them even stronger. There is certainly no great practical difficulty about doing that.
I deal next with paragraph (g)—the appointment of a member
…by the Minister after consultation with such persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of organised labour in Wales as he may consider appropriate;".


I do not think that there will now be any difficulty in the minds of the Committee about the method of making that appointment, in view of the consideration that we have given to what was suggested to us in the Second Reading debate. The requirement that the Minister should consult "persons or bodies" representative of labour in Wales should allay any fears that the consideration of who is to be appointed would be confined to London. The effect of that, of course, as hon. Members will understand, will be to reduce the representation of the county council on the Board from four members to three, but I do not think that that really makes any difference, because the original fourth member was to have been a trade unionist in any case.
There are one or two points that I should like to make on the suggestion that there should be not one but two representatives of organised labour. Perhaps I might deal with that, and reply later to any observations that are made about it. I think that this is asking rather too much because it would be a misconception of the rôle and functions of the Conservancy Board to suggest that it is to do anything more than look after the navigation of the Haven.
It will not provide docks or quays, or deal with the handling of ships or the loading or unloading of cargoes. It will not employ any dock labour or, indeed, very much labour of any kind. Its staff will be mainly administrative, and the only industrial employees will be a number of maintenance men and staff to do repair work to moorings and small craft. I am afraid that I have to reject that suggestion. I thought that the Committee would be satisfied that the changed method of appointing a representative of organised labour would be sufficient.
These Amendments are, perhaps, rather complicated, but I come now to that standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen, relating to the South West Wales River Board. I hope that she will be satisfied now—in view of my acceptance of her first Amendment dealing with salmon, which, I think, was one of the anxieties of the River Board itself—that it will not be really necessary to have on the Conservancy Board a member of the River

Board in addition to the representation we already have from the National Parks Commission and other persons concerned with amenities. Salmon are very important, I have no doubt, but we have also got two fishery representatives on the Board as it is, as the hon. Lady will see if she looks at the Schedule—

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Deep sea.

Mr. Neave: Yes, deep sea, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) says, but we have got two fishery members and I should have thought that that was sufficient.
There may be other points which hon. Members will wish to raise when dealing with their Amendments, so perhaps I can leave it until they do so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It would be ungenerous of me if I did not pay tribute to the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have attempted to meet us in these Amendments. They have gone a long way to meet us and I am sure that my hon. Friends and I are grateful for this approach.
As the Committee will remember, the original proposition was that the Bill would provide for a chairman and 16 others. What the Minister now proposes is that there shall be a chairman and 17 members of the Board. He has met us handsomely with regard to the amenities in the special appointment of a member of the National Parks Commission; be has met us completely on the method of appointing the trade union representative, but he has reduced the county council representation to three. It was originally four, one of whom was to be the trade union representative.
What we have contended in our Amendments—and as we are discussing them all together it would be as well to have the general discussion now—is that the Pembroke County Council, which is the authority most involved, should still retain four members on the Board, and we have further suggested that the trade union representation should be increased to two. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) was very anxious about the River Board representation, and I think that by and large she is very pleased with


the compromise that has been put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary in accepting her first Amendment.
We are, therefore, now in this position, that we have a Conservancy Board which has nine representatives representing private interests. We have only one, under the Minister's proposition, representing the trade unions. We have only three representing the public interest. We think that that proportion is not correct, and that the public interest at least ought to have four representatives. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that he will give the public representation an increased proportion on the Board, one can see that there will not be much case for suggesting that the trade union representation should be increased.
What we want on this Board is a much better balance between the private and public interests, but as the hon. Gentleman has come so far to meet us on the points which we made on Second Reading, we would ask him to consider these representations now and we suggest that between now and a further stage of the Bill, perhaps in another place, he should meet some of the points that we are putting particularly with regard to this balance of private interest as against public interest, and give either to the public interest or to the trade union interest a slightly improved representation to make up for the unbalance that exists between the private and public interests.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I will certainly consider it again, but I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. We have tried very hard to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and we have had further consultations. I think this seems to be about the right balance, bearing in mind, as I think the right hon. Gentleman concedes, that it is the private interest that is putting up all the money. I will certainly look at it again without giving any undertaking.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: This is an occasion when, in the view of the shipping industry, first thoughts are best. I am sorry that it looks as if the Schedule as it stands will be amended. It should not be amended in any respect. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) spoke

about proportional representation. I would have thought that the most satisfactory arrangement for the composition of the Board would be one which would ensure that trading interests and non-trading interests would be equally represented. As the Schedule stands, that equality is achieved if it is agreed, as I think it must be, that the trading interest consists of those providing the facilities at the Haven and of those making use of the facilities.
The Schedule in its present form bestows direct representation on the Board to trading interests in this way: to trawlers, one; to waterside frontagers, four; to dues payers, three. That is a total of eight, and is precisely half the number which would make up the Board under a chairman. The effect of these proposed Amendments—and I do not think that there are any exceptions—would be to upset the balance of the interest on the Board by increasing the preponderance of the non-trading interests. I think that that is a pity, and so far during the debate on this Schedule I have found no justification for making this change.
Dealing briefly with one or two of the Amendments on the Notice Paper, I cannot see the need for a representative on the Board of the National Parks Commission. Clause 1 of the Bill defines the functions of the Board, which are to maintain, improve, portect and regularise the navigation of Milford Haven. In other words, the responsibility of the Board is limited entirely to the waters and it will have no control whatsoever over industrial development on land. I cannot see why, in spite of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary or other hon. Members of the Committee, the National Parks Commission should be represented on a Board which is concerned only with navigational facilities.
Turning to another Amendment, I hope I understood the Minister correctly when he said that he was not prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). This Amendment seeks to give representation on the Conservancy Board to the South West Wales River Board. The function of the South West Wales River Board, as with others, is land drainage. So far as I know, it has nothing to do with navigational facilities. I


think, therefore, that the intention of that Amendment is entirely misguided.
Regarding the proposal to increase trade union representation from one to two, it is obviously correct that organised labour should be represented on the Board. However, other interests, such as frontagers and various classes of shipping, are each given one representative. To my mind, trade union representation should be limited in the same way.
For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendments and that he will also resist other Amendments to the Schedule, which, I trust, he will ask the Committee to approve as it stands.

Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), speaking for the shipping interests, should have disturbed the tranquillity of the waters of Milford Haven, but his points are easily met.
First, on the question of the National Parks Commission, what happens on the water governs to a great extent what happens on the land. If the harbour authorities say to the planning authority, "This, we think, is a suitable water frontage for this user", then the planning authority obviously has to take cognisance of them in saying what can be done to provide facilities on the land.
It is better to get this dispute resolved, as the Parliamentary Secretary said so rightly in answering the point I raised earlier in the debate, by having an amicable understanding with the National Parks Commission about what is going on. The sole purpose of the suggestion that we should have the National Parks Commission represented on the Conservancy Board is to facilitate the general working of the area. If the hon. and gallant Baronet reflects, I am sure he will realise that it is only helping the shipping interests in their best utilisation of the Haven.
As to the second point about the South West Wales River Board, I do not altogether like his remark about it being responsible only for land drainage. I think we could take it a bit wider, and if we did so, we would find that the shipping interests in the country are much indebted to the wisdom of the land drainage

people, if they are so described, by their co-operation in other rivers in the country. Again, all that we are seeking here is an amicable understanding, to make it easier for the flow of water into the Haven and so that the fresh water fisheries—which, after all, are an important industry of the area—should not in any way come into conflict with the shipping interests.
The third point is the question of the numbers of trade unionists. I would have thought that our suggestion was a reasonable one. There are four representatives of the users, of the commercial interests of the different companies. It would have been reasonable for us to have said that, therefore, there should be four trades unionists. They are just as important, and, again, if the hon. and gallant Baronet reflects, he will realise that it is important for the shipping interests to work in harmony with the trades unions. We have been moderate, but it could be looked at again on the Report stage if the hon. and gallant Baronet still feels that the number should be four, because, if he thinks that the users should be so widely represented, then the balance is wrong.
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the conciliatory way in which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have met our suggestions in this debate, but I support the suggestions of my right hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, line 9, leave out "nine" and insert "ten".

In line 21, leave out paragraph (f) and insert:
(f) one by the National Parks Commission;
(g) one by the Minister after consultation with such persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of organised labour in Wales as he may consider appropriate;
(h) three by the county council of Pembroke—[Mr. Neave.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 24, line 32, to leave out the second "the."

This is a drafting Amendment to correct the name of "Esso Petroleum Company Limited." I understand that it is not prefixed by "the."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 12, leave out "seventeen" and insert "eighteen."—[Mr. Neale.]

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 27, line 15, to leave out from "of" to "tonnage" in line 17, and to insert:
whose arrival in the haven last before those facilities were so used by them dues have been paid to the Board under subsection (1) of section ten of this Act and the aggregate of the.
If it is convenient, Sir Gordon, might we consider at the same time the next four Amendments, for they are consequential?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): If it is for the convenience of the Committee, the five Amendments may be considered together.

Mr. Neave: The purpose of the Amendments is to remove any doubt as to the method of calculating the number of votes—the relevant passage is paragraph 18 of the Schedule—to which the waterside frontagers—that is, the people providing facilities, such as Esso, B.P., and the Milford Dock Company who have private Acts—are to be entitled for elections to the board. As the paragraph is at present drafted, the votes are to be:
…determined by reference to the aggregate tonnage aforesaid…
That is, the tonnage on which dues are paid in respect of vessels using the waterside facilities.
Under Clause 10 and the Third Schedule, dues are charged both when a vessel enters the Haven and when she leaves the Haven. For the purpose of assessing the votes of waterside frontagers, however, we wish the tonnage to be reckoned once only in respect of each visit by a vessel to any individual waterside facility.
The proposed Amendment would remove any doubt which might have arisen as a result of the original drafting of paragraph 18 which might be construed as meaning that the tonnage of each vessel calling at any dock within the Haven should be counted twice for voting purposes; that is to say, once on entering the Haven and once on departing, because dues are paid on both occasions. It is the first Amendment which gives effect to the change, and the remaining Amendments are consequential. Hon. Members will find the system set out in

paragraph 18, and it is to simplify the meaning of the paragraph that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: How far does the method of electing members to the Board conform with the present practice where other port authorities have been established? What is the position in London? Does this method apply there? Is there anything novel about the method which is proposed? If we could have some indication whether this is the recognised method of appointing representatives of private interests, it would help us with the Amendment.

Mr. Noave: As I understand, it is quite according to precedent. This practice is followed by a number of other harbour boards and dock authorities. I can give the right hon. Gentleman details, but I do not think that he will want them now I can assure him that we have followed the precedents.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 18, leave out "was" and insert "is".

In line 20, leave out "tonnage".

In page 28, line 29, leave out from "tonnage" to end of line 34 and insert:
attributed to him for the purposes of paragraph 18 of this Schedule.

In line 37, leave out from "amount" to end of line 39 and insert:
attributed to him for the purposes of the last foregoing paragraph."—[Mr. Neave.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(AUTHORISED RATES OF DUES.)

Sir L. Ropner: I beg to move, in page 33, line 21, after "vessel", to insert:
entering or departing from the haven in ballast or".
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss the Amendment in page 33, line 21, after "haven", to insert:
for bunkering purposes only or".

The Deputy-Chairman: That will be convenient.

Sir L. Ropner: The Schedule specifies the maximum rate of dues which may be demanded by the Board. Generally


speaking, the dues are to be 1d. per net registered ton for ships engaged on coasting voyages and 4d. per net registered ton for ships engaged on overseas voyages. No one can yet say whether those rates will raise funds which will prove to be either too great or too small for the requirements of the Board. I think that the proposed dues seem to be reasonable and in any case they are capable of revision.
The third paragraph of the Schedule specifies certain circumstances in which ships entering the Haven will be charged not more than one-third of the appropriate maximum rate and the two Amendments would extend the provisions of that paragraph to cover two additional categories of vessels, namely, those ships entering or leaving in ballast and those ships which call at the haven for bunkers only.
There is nothing new in the proposals which are made by the two Amendments. Both are quite usual and it is a recognised principle that a ship loading or discharging either passengers or cargo at a port should pay higher dues than a vessel without a pay load. As a matter of general interest, this is a principle which is also often applied to pilotage dues.
I understand that the Minister has held the view that navigational facilities, for which the Board will be responsible, are just as important for a ship in ballast, or for one calling for bunkers only, as for any other ship. I also understand that in applyng what I have called a principle the Minister draws a distinction between an authority with purely conservancy powers and an authority which, in addition, provides port facilities in the way of docks.
I do not think that either of these arguments conforms to the usual practice throughout the world, particularly in the case of ships in ballast. Moreover, it seems to me that if these arguments are valid the Minister should not press—indeed, he should not even propose—the Amendment in page 33, line 24, after "passengers", to insert:
and in the case of a vessel entering the haven solely for the purpose of using oil reception facilities within the meaning of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955".
I hope that the Committee will appreciate that the owners of ships would not, in total, pay any less sum in dues if these

two Amendments were accepted. The Board obviously must have funds, and if certain categories of ships pay less other categories will pay more. The Amendments are proposed because it is thought that if accepted the charge for dues will be spread in a more equitable and more acceptable manner.

Mr. Stan Awbery: The Amendments would provide for three classes of ships entering the Haven. First, there is the ship that comes into the Haven because of the stress of weather. That ship will be charged one-third of the appropriate rate. I believe that that is correct. The captain of such a vessel has no control, and has to go into the port to shelter.
Secondly, there is the ship that enters the Haven in ballast to bring out a cargo, or takes in a cargo and brings out ballast. The purpose of the charge is to enable the Conservancy Board to maintain the fairway and all the necessary facilities for shipping in the Haven. All these facilities are available to a ship which is in ballast, and I cannot see any reason why a ship in ballast should be favoured.
Thirdly, there is the ship that enters the Haven for bunkering, and I feel that the same provision should apply. I see no reason why such a ship should pay only one third. I cannot see why the two latter categories should benefit, as does the ship that has to enter the harbour because of the stress of weather.

Mr. Neave: I have listened with great attention to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) have said. This is really a matter for the Board to decide in the future, and if it were found desirable to introduce lower dues for vessels in ballast, or calling only for bunkers, the Board would be able to provide accordingly under the Bill as it now stands.
The Minister will also have power, under Section 6 of the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954, to revise the Schedule to include a lower rate if he thinks fit, on the application of any person or body appearing to him to have a substantial interest.
I do not propose, therefore, to go into the arguments. There are distinctions which can be made, but I do not think it necessary to make them, in view of the existing powers and the discretion given to the Conservancy in this matter. I suggest that the Committee allow it to try, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We are interested in these Amendments. Milford Haven may become a very important bunkering centre and there may be a greater development in the cargo trade from the Bristol Channel ports. If oil is going into Milford Haven, brought there by very large tankers, one can understand the possible importance of the bunkering trade.
From the present drafting of the Bill it appears that a limitation is imposed upon the lower charge which may be made for vessels which are either bunkering or entering in ballast or to take in ballast. It appears to be restrictive. In the present draft one cannot see what powers the Conservancy Board will have to change the duties for those categories of ships. The Board may have power to change the rates in general, but not in particular. The only particular case set out is that mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pay more attention to the views which have been expressed. If the bunkering trade can be developed at Milford Haven, it will help the port and the Board with the general charges which have to be imposed.

Mr. Paul Williams: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). I should have thought that it would be a disadvantage for the Board to run any risk of preventing the bunkering service from developing. The first thing the authority would wish to do would be to encourage and help the development of the Milford Haven Conservancy area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can give further thought to this matter and that he will pay particular attention to that point. We should try to attract custom to this area and make it a success and

these two small but important Amendments point a way in which the Milford Haven area may be fully developed.

Mr. Awbery: May we get the position quite clear? This will be an oil port and ships will come in for bunkering and we are to give them this right—

Mr. Williams: Surely, if a vessel comes in loaded with oil, it will have to pay the full rate under the Bill as it stands, and also if the Amendments are accepted.

Mr. Awbery: A ship comes in with a cargo of 30,000 or 40,000 tons of oil and will go out in ballast and does not pay. I want to get it clear that it does not pay one way or the other.

Mr. Watkinson: We have considered this matter carefully. We ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment because we are anxious not to fetter the Conservancy any more than we must at this early stage. It is difficult to see how things will develop, but I assure the Committee that the Conservancy will have adequate powers under Clause 10 of the Bill to vary its dues. Therefore, it is wiser probably to leave that to the Board. I will certainly undertake to consider the arguments put forward by hon. Members before the next stage of the Bill, but, again, without accepting any commitment.

Sir L. Ropner: In view of the assurance which the Minister has given that the matter will be looked at again before the next stage of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 33, line 24, after "passengers" to insert:
and in the case of a vessel entering the haven solely for the purpose of using oil reception facilities within the meaning of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955".
The Amendment refers to vessels discharging waste oil through the facilities provided for that purpose and enables them to pay the lower rates of dues that are authorised in paragraph 3. There are good reasons for this. The definition of oil reception facilities is to be found in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955.
To avoid oil pollution in the Haven, it is desirable to encourage ships to discharge the oil residues in their tanks and for that purpose special facilities are provided. It is desirable to install plant for


that purpose and that ships coming into the Haven solely for that purpose should be charged the same dues as are charged to ships entering for repairs or by reason only of Stress of weather. There is no danger of oil reception facilities within the meaning of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, being confused with the discharge facilities for tankers which, as hon. Members know, are to be provided in the Haven by B.P. and Esso. That is the position under the Amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted,

Mr. William Shepherd: Would my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary clear up one point, which also has reference to the previous Amendment? The Government are proposing to put this further Amendment into the Bill specifying a special rate, although my hon. Friend has refused permission for that to be done in connection with other categories. I want to be very sure that the Government will not look with distaste upon any future action by the Board to give special facilities to certain categories. I assume that the Government are only specifying these categories in the public interest. The Government want to put that into the Bill, but I hope they do not in any way diminish the power of the Board at a later date to give the advantage to other categories of ships. I want to get that point abundantly clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO STOCK OF THE BOARD.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 34, line 36, to leave out "to" and to insert "for".
The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a printing error.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered.

Clause 18.—(ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD.)

Mr. Neave: I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, to leave out "a copy" and to insert "three copies".

There is a further manuscript Amendment, in line 41, after the word "year" to insert:
and the Minister shall cause one of those copies to be laid before each House of Parliament.
The object of this Amendment is to clear up a point which was made at a previous stage in these proceedings on an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) with regard to the laying of the accounts before Parliament. The additional words are proposed so that the Minister may cause a copy to be laid before each House of Parliament and keep one copy for himself.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 41, after the word "year" insert:
and the Minister shall cause one of those copies to be laid before each House of Parliament."—[Mr. Neave.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Secretary of State—

(i) in making grants towards any expenditure incurred by persons empowered by an order made under the said Act by the Secretary of State to execute works specified in such order, being grants amounting to not more than one half of such expenditure so far as approved by the Secretary of State as having been reasonably incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, the discharge by the said persons of their functions under such order or the said Act other than expenditure incurred for the purpose of, or in the course of, maintaining any works executed in pursuance of the order;
(ii) in executing or maintaining any works specified in such an order;
(iii) which are administrative expenses.

B. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act by the Secretary of State.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DENTAL FACILITIES, BIRMINGHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: Tonight, I am raising the question of dental facilities in the City of Birmingham with special reference to the difficult situation which has been created by the overcrowded condition of the Birmingham Dental Hospital.
It is now nearly four years since I first drew the attention of the Minister of Health, the present Minister of Labour, to the very serious overcrowding at Birmingham Dental Hospital. In March, 1954, the right hon. Gentleman informed me in this House that the regional hospital board was looking at this matter as one of urgency. Since that time every conceivable method of relieving the congestion has been examined and, on 5th November, 1956, I was informed by the hon. Lady who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that plans for a new hospital were under consideration.
The situation became so unbearable that I urged the previous Minister of Health to visit the City of Birmingham and to see this hospital for himself. He did so at the end of last year, and the impression which he gave both to me and also to the authorities in Birmingham was that the provision of a new dental hospital was one of the first priorities. He certainly gave all concerned to understand that that hospital would be included in the 1958 programme. Plans were drawn up in the light of further discussions with the Ministry and all is now ready to be put into action. The site is there, the dental hospital is the first priority in the building programme of the United Hospital Board and I understand that the University Grants Committee has agreed upon the proportion to be paid by the University.
The House will, therefore, appreciate my astonishment when a few days ago, the Minister of Health announced that he was unable to say when the new hospital would be commenced. Each month during each of those years the delay has

meant that the new building will cost more because of increased building costs. I ask the Minister to place this hospital in the 1958 programme because it is a matter of considerable urgency and importance to the country.
I have visited the hospital on a number of occasions, both as a patient and as a visitor. The last time I visited it was on Monday of this week. I can only describe this hospital, from the basement to the top floor, as outrageous by any civilised standards and intolerable to both patients and staff.
I give it that description for four particular reasons. The first concerns the position of the patients. I know that the Minister has this information, but it is information which I obtained from the hospital on Monday, when I asked for information, and I should like to give it to the House. On 1st December, 1956, there were 600 adults on a six-months' waiting list for conservation treatment. On 1st December, 1957, that number had increased to 950, not on a six-months' waiting list but on a nine-months' waiting list. On 1st December, 1956, there were 84 children on a five-months' waiting list for orthodontic treatment. It is vital that this work in straightening children's teeth should be done. It is work which ought not to wait as long as so many children have to wait for it today. This figure of 84 was increased to 147 on a six-months' waiting list by 1st December, 1957.
In general anaesthetics and local anaesthetics for emergency treatment, the hospital cannot guarantee to give treatment the same day. Even though they are suffering pain, patients may have to wait for a day. A year ago 270 people were on a waiting list of one day for emergency treatment. That figure had increased on 1st December, 1957, to 351. This is the position from Monday to Friday. The dental hospital closes at the weekend. What happens then?
This brings me to the second reason. This general hospital at Birmingham is flooded out with dental patients, emergency cases, so that on an average there are 200 cases at the weekends, which is an enormous burden upon the casualty department of the hospital. This is the largest casualty department in the whole of the country. It is an intolerable burden upon the General Hospital.
My third reason is the overcrowding of this dental hospital. I have brought some photographs to show the House what this means. I have here a photograph, taken some time ago, which shows one room in this hospital with 25 to 30 dental chairs practically touching each other. That was the state of overcrowding. The position is even worse today. Another photograph which I have here is of the same room where one can see not only the dental surgeons operating but patients waiting and watching in the same room, children as well as adults.
When I was at the hospital on Monday, I saw patients facing each other with blood streaming from their mouths, within sight of many waiting for treatment. A more ghastly introduction to dentistry, I think it would not be possible to witness. The staff of this hospital do a wonderful job and they are to be congratulated, but the best treatment cannot be given to patients for reasons of time and space.
My fourth reason for describing this condition as outrageous, as I see it according to civilised standards, is the intolerable conditions for the staff. There are two lavatories for 40 to 50 staff and only four lavatories for all the patients. In case of fire, or some other calamity, the crowding is such that the building is positively unsafe. I hope that the Minister will accept an invitation by me to go to Birmingham and see the conditions. I should like to accompany him, because I am sure that he will be able to see that what I am telling the House tonight is no exaggeration.
I asked about the clerical staff. It is not possible to find space anywhere in the hospital to employ an appointment clerk, because there is nowhere to put him. The patients' records, which are being housed in the hospital, from what I saw on Monday, constitute a quite serious problem. I was informed that a grant of £1,500 had been allocated with the purpose of putting in a false ceiling with a floor over one room where someone could at least crawl round to get the records, but the architect says that the walls are not strong enough to enable this to be done, even with a grant of £1,500.
I would remind the Minister that this hospital is the only one in the Midlands.

It is serving all the major towns in the Midland area and a population of about 4½ million. There is no dental hospital from Bristol in the south to Sheffield in the north, so Birmingham has this great responsibility. I think that the House will appreciate that those facts demonstrate the gravity of the situation.
The hospital is over-full for the training of dental students. It was built to accommodate only 18 students, but this year took 45. That is a record, but I understand that it is giving rise to grave administrative difficulties. On 2nd December, the Minister informed me that 40 places would be allocated for 1958, but I discovered at the hospital on Monday that up to that day more than 140 applications had been received for those 40 places and that other applications were coming in at a rate of six or seven a day. The Minister should know, from the Teviot Report, that 900 students a year are required to produce a register of 20,000.
All the children's services—and nearly all other services—have totally insufficient staff. This morning I asked the Minister of Education to tell me the position in relation to the Birmingham schools. This is the information I obtained:
There is, indeed, a dire shortage of school dentists in the Birmingham area, as they have an equivalent of 18.4 full-time dentists for their whole school population of approximately 184,000—a relationship of one dentist to 10,000 pupils. This is no reflection whatsoever on the efficiency of the Birmingham education authorities. The ideal which the Ministry would like to realise is one full-time dentist to 3,000 pupils; and the proportion throughout England and Wales at present is one dentist to about 6,500 pupils.
But in Birmingham it is one dentist to 10,000 pupils.
I understand that the University Grants Committee has suggested that the new dental hospital should take 80 students—double the intake for 1958. All responsible bodies have agreed to this, but only if and when this new hospital can proceed. The present situation is tragic. Our people and the children need to have their teeth adequately protected. This is a matter of the people's health, and it is a tragedy, when there is that demand for dentists, that young men and women who seek to follow this worthy profession should be denied the opportunity.
I ask the Minister to do something about this, because I am told that last year we lost a lot of potentially fine dental surgeons, and this year we have 140 applications for 40 places. What can we do? We may be able to find a few places in Scotland, but, in fact, the present maximum capacity of the schools is from 650 to 700. I fear that, once again, we shall see these worthy young people who wish to follow this admirable profession denied the opportunity.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Yates: It is a bigger tragedy, too, because the world demands dentistry. It is unfortunate that we are lagging behind many countries, both in the West and in the East. Countries like Denmark and Sweden could certainly put us to shame. Having raised this question many times over the past four years, I protest tonight that this hospital, which is situated in the centre of Birmingham should be allowed to continue in this condition. I am sure that there is not a hospital of its nature where the conditions are worse.
In conclusion, I should like to say how much I appreciate the loyalty, patience and tolerance of the staff who are working in these conditions. By all the standards to which I have referred, if the Factories Acts applied to the dental hospital in Birmingham, then the hospital would be condemned. I have the greatest admiration for the staff working in these difficult circumstances. Surely, they could do what many factory workers would do in similar circumstances, namely, object to continue to work in such extremely difficult conditions.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to give new hope to those who wish to help our country in its urgent need and who wish to play their part in protecting the health of the people. I hope that tonight the Minister will say something to give new hope to speed forward the new hospital of which Birmingham and the country can be proud.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The House has heard with great surprise and much disquiet the state of affairs

in Birmingham to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) referred. It is certainly very unsatisfactory that patients while waiting for treatment should be exposed to the type of scenes that my hon. Friend has described. I fear that this is by no means an isolated instance. Several hon. Members on this side of the House would agree that on the whole dental treatment in this country is very inferior, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to that in the United States and Scandinavian countries. Although my hon. Friend has brought the attention of the House more specifically to the problems of Birmingham, similar problems exist in a very much wider area and in many other towns. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what he can do to improve the country's dental treatment.
There is no doubt that the number of dentists available is, at present, quite inadequate. It is generally accepted that, among the countries which have a superior standard of hygiene, the United Kingdom lags behind in dental hygiene. I should particularly like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what can be done, first of all, to increase recruitment to the dental profession, and, secondly, to improve the standards of dental treatment that we can obtain in dental hospitals and clinics.
Another serious omission in the National Health Service facilities is in the realm of orthodontics, the treatment of deformities of the teeth, which lags very seriously behind. Under the National Health Service conditions, one can have teeth removed or stopped; one can have elementary treatment, but as for skilled treatment of an orthodontic nature—the correction of deformities of the teeth—we lag very seriously behind the United States and Scandinavian countries, and I should be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate what can be done for improvement in the future.
I think my hon. Friends will agree that there is no reason at all why, with our, generally speaking, superb National Health Service, we should not have dental and orthodontic treatment of the same high standard as in, say, general surgery or general medicine in this country, which is of a very high standard indeed.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this and to address himself to these two major points: first, how to increase the recruitment of dentists generally in the specialist form of dentistry and orthodontics, and how to ensure that there is generally a higher standard of dental treatment in this country.

10.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I think we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for raising this matter this evening. We all know his assiduity at Question Time on a matter which is of the greatest constituency interest to him, apart from its importance in the general context of the dental services provided in the country as a whole. If the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) will forgive me, I shall devote the greater part of my observations this evening to the strictures of the hon. Member for Ladywood because, after all, it was his debate and he asked me to relate my remarks particularly to his local but very important problem in Birmingham.
The hon. Member for Ladywood was, in his usual courteous way, good enough to tell me of the points which he proposed to raise this evening, and, indeed, shortly before the debate started he showed me the photographs to which he referred during the course of his remarks and I was able to look at them rather more closely than I could across the Floor of the Chamber. I very gladly accept the offer of his escort on a visit to Birmingham, which I certainly hope to arrange—I cannot give him a date for that now, but it is firmly in my mind and I know that his help will be very useful to me at that time.
Before I get on to the main points which the hon. Gentleman made, I would point out that he made one or two general observations in which he said, for instance, that in our provision of dental services, particularly in Birmingham, Denmark and Sweden could put us to shame. It is likely that in certain areas of this country they could, but of course we have fought and endured two world wars for which we are still paying, and if we take our services as a whole I think we shall find, considering the things that we have gone through, that we are not making such bad provision.

At any rate, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the things we fought for then were well worth fighting for, even if it takes us some time to catch up on all the things we should like to do in the years afterwards. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the loyalty and devotion of the staff, who certainly are working in exceedingly difficult and unattractive conditions in this hospital. There is nothing between us in that.
Turning to the question of over-crowding in the Birmingham Dental Hospital, as the hon. Gentleman knows it was built in 1902 and, particularly since the end of the war, difficulties have arisen owing to the restricted character of the original building. The extension of the original building is not possible, first because of the restricted site and, secondly, because the hospital itself is due to be demolished eventually under a road improvement scheme. Some relief has been provided by the erection of new hutted buildings on a neighbouring bombed site, completed in 1950, and by the purchase and adaptation of nearby warehouse property in Barwick Street, which was brought into use in 1955. I readily agree that these schemes are only temporary expedients to relieve conditions which are highly unsatisfactory.
It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) visited the hospital in November, 1956, and saw for himself the state of affairs existing there. I do not deny the overcrowding, and this is due to two factors: first, the rise in the number of students entering the hospital for training; and, secondly, the increasing numbers of patients seeking treatment.
We must devote a little time to the student point because this is a teaching hospital. If we go back to before the war, we find that in 1936–37 13 students were admitted to the clinical part of the dental course. The following year the number was 15 and in 1938–39, just before war broke out, it was 23. By 1952 the number had risen to 39, and in 1954–55 it was as high as 43. As the hon. Gentleman was recently informed in reply to a Question he put down, there will be 40 places available in 1958, although there are more than 100 applicants for these places already.
Turning to the patients, in 1939 patient attendances were about 30,000, and since then, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there have been very great increases. Total attendances were 55,000 in 1948, 83,000 in 1949, 158,000 in 1953 and 153,000 last year. During the first 10 months of 1957 total attendances were 126,867 which, on an annual basis, would work out at 152,000 odd. Although the figures are showing signs of flattening out a bit, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are greatly beyond the capacity of the hospital to cope with.
The pressure on the dental hospital is due to the shortage of dentists in the country, which affects Birmingham as it affects other places. The figures I have quoted show that the dental hospital has been doing a great deal to meet the dental needs of the general public, remembering that it is a teaching hospital, which is doing that job in addition to its teaching functions. It is not intended, of its nature, to provide a dental service for all comers. Indeed, preferably it should accept patients only to the extent necessary to provide a reasonable flow of clinical material for the students under instruction. Even when the new hospital has been completed, it will not be possible for it to meet a public demand at the level which is being experienced by the Dental Hospital at present.
The picture with regard to treatment has to be taken into consideration along with the dental treatment available at other Birmingham hospitals. We cannot consider the matter quite in isolation although it is tempting to do so. This is not the only hospital which provides hospital dental treatment in Birmingham. The Dudley Road Hospital has always been prepared to treat emergency patients at night and at weekends, and the Selly Oak Hospital is now helping with emergency dental work every third weekend and during the week.
During 1956 outpatient attendances for dental treatment at Dudley Road and Selly Oak totalled respectively 5,799 and 7,211. In addition, out-patients were treated at the General Hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Children's Hospital.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of these figures. Indeed, they formed the basis of a good deal of what he had to say. What he is really concerned with is the future and the provision

for the new hospital. In many of these projects where existing facilities have ceased to keep pace with the demand and are no longer adequate to the strain put on them, it is possible to improvise, to adapt, to carry out a repair programme and perhaps do a little additional building, and, by one expedient or another, to tide over a difficult period until more fitting accommodation can be provided. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that alternative is not open to us in this case.
I explained at the commencement of my remarks that, because of the difficulties of the site, the size of the site, and the fact that it is proposed in due course to demolish the buildings to make room for a new road, any large sums of money spent on rebuilding, adaptation, repairs and so forth would largely be thrown away because the time will come when the whole building is demolished. Therefore, we are really driven to the point of agreeing that these facilities cannot be improved much on the present site and that we must look to a new building to provide the kind of care which we would wish and which Birmingham undoubtedly needs.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal to build a new hospital was first put to the Department at the end of 1954. At that time a round figure of £500,000 was mentioned as the likely cost. In March, 1955, when some more planning had been done, the board quoted a figure of £610,000, including professional fees. When sketch plans were sent to the Department in July, 1956, the estimated cost had gone up to £1,250,000, including equipment, but excluding professional fees.
Those plans have been discussed with the Board of Governors on several occasions and the Department's officers have made a number of detailed suggestions designed to reduce the cost of the building. Further progress, however, has been inevitably delayed by the need to consider the relationship of the Birmingham scheme to the recommendations of the McNair Committee for increasing the number of students generally. When the Board of Governors first discussed with the Department its plans for the new dental hospital, the Board was thinking in terms of a student entry of 60. It later revised that figure to 75.
Subsequently, however, the University Grants Committee sought information from the universities in the light of the McNair Report. The Committee is now considering the information it has received and the final decision on the size of student entry on which the plans for the Birmingham Hospital must depend cannot be made until the Committee's deliberations have been completed. That is a consideration which must be borne in mind when we are pressing for an early determination of these matters.
The hon. Member asked me quite squarely whether I could say that provision for the hospital would be included in the 1958–59 programme. That was the information which above all else he was anxious to seek from me. I cannot give him the precise answer which he would like since, as I have said, it depends on whether agreement is reached on the plans. The particular consideration which I mentioned—the view of the University Grants Committee on the figure of student entry which it requires—is very material to the matter. I realise that the hon. Member will probably feel that that is less than he could wish from the debate.
The hon. Member for Loughborough wanted me to go into very much wider questions of the provision of additional dental facilities throughout the country as a whole, which were not specifically included in the more narrow context of the debate. I am sure that he will be aware of the principal recommendations of the McNair Report and I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend is giving constant consideration to the way in which those recommendations can best be implemented.
On the comparison with other countries, the hon. Member for Loughborough reflected that our provision in these matters was perhaps a great deal worse than that in the United States. Having had teeth out in America, I can say that I found it an exceedingly costly performance and, if we take the two services as a whole, I would back our service against the American service on any occasion.
I and my right hon. and learned Friend are very much seized with the force of everything which the hon. Member for Ladywood has said this evening. I know that he will be satisfied only by a categorical assurance from this Box

that plans have been approved and the money sanctioned for an early start.
I have said that I cannot give him this categorical assurance, for the reasons that I have stated, but his initiative in raising this matter and the persistence with which he sticks to it will at least ensure that neither I nor my right hon. Friend will ever be minded to—shall I say—let this most important matter take anything like a back seat in our calculations.

Mr. Yates: I fully appreciate the extent to which the Minister has gone in dealing with this matter, but as the information which I obtained was so specific, that every responsible body, including the University Grants Committee, had agreed upon this matter, will he make a special investigation, and if he finds that this position is correct, speed this matter forward in the light of his knowledge?

10.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for arriving rather late in the debate. It started earlier than I expected.
We all appreciate the problem involved in the training of dentists, but I hope that the Minister will understand that we have to face not only the period required for building the new hospitals, in Birmingham and elsewhere—or for making extensions to the existing ones—but also the fact that before we can have the benefit of these additional entrants, trained and able to be of service to us, we have another six years to wait on top of that.
In addition, all the time we are losing dentists who are getting older and retiring. The critical position that the McNair Committee foresaw is coming upon us very rapidly. It is, therefore, a matter of real urgency, both as regards the project in Birmingham and elsewhere, to try to ensure that this inevitable waiting period of at least six years—even if the new accommodation were ready now—is not extended, as it will be by every month's delay in making extra accommodation available.
I hope that the hon. Member will represent to his right hon. Friend the urgency with which we all regard the matter.

Mr. R. Thompson: Mr. R. Thompson indicated assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.